DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Biological Opinion Re: EPA Final Rule

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Biological Opinion Re: EPA Final Rule United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Washington, D.C. 20240 In Response Refer To: FWS/ AES/DERIBCH/OS6 189 Mr. Robert Wood Director Engineering and Analysis Division Office of Water U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 20460 Dear Mr. Wood: In accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the Interagency Cooperation Regulations (50 CFR 402), this transmits our final biological opinion (Opinion) on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) issuance and implementation of the final regulations implementing Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 7(a)(2) ofthe ESA of1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)), requires Federal agencies to insure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. When a Federal agency's action may affect listed species or critical habitat, formal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required (50 CFR 402.14(a)). EPA requested formal consultation even though EPA was ofthe opinion that its action would not cause adverse effects to listed species and critical habitat. After review of the proposed regulation, biological evaluation, and other available information we determined that the proposed action is likely to adversely affect threatened and endangered species and designated critical habitat. Federal agencies may request a conference on a proposed action that may affect proposed species or proposed critical habitat. While the EPA request for consultation indicates proposed species were addressed in the biological evaluation, a conference opinion was not requested, nor was the information presented in the biological evaluation sufficient to complete a conference opinion for all proposed species. Therefore, we are not providing a conference opinion at this time. EPA proposes to issue and implement final regulations (40 CFR 122 and 125; Rule) to establish requirements for cooling water intake structures (CWIS) at existing facilities under section 316(b) of the CWA. This document transmits a joint NMFS and USFWS Opinion on the proposed action and its effects on ESA-listed species and designated critical habitat. We based our Opinion on information provided in the draft Rule and Preamble, the Services' interpretations ofthat rule as agreed upon by EPA on AprilS, 2014, the biological evaluation for the CWA section 316(b) Rulemaking provided by EPA on June 18, 2013, consultation meetings, peer-reviewed publications, recovery plans, government reports, grey literature, scientific and commercial data, and other sources of information. We prepared our Opinion in accordance with section 7(a)(2) of the statute (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)), associated implementing regulations (50 CFR 402), and agency policy and guidance (USFWS and NMFS 1998). We appreciate your commitment in the conservation of endangered species. If you require further assistance or have any questions, please contact Ms. Cathy Tortorici, Chief, Interagency Cooperation Division, NMFS, at 301-427-8495 or by e-mail at [email protected], or Ms. Patrice Ashfield, Chief, Branch of Consultations and Habitat Conservation Planning, USFWS, at 703-358-2478 or by e-mail at [email protected]. Sincerely, ¢h Donna Wieting ~ary Frazer Director for ~- ~ssistant Director for Office of Protected Resources Ecological Services Attachment Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Programmatic Biological Opinion on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Issuance and Implementation of the Final Regulations Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service Endangered Species Program Office of Protected Resources Division of Environmental Review Endangered Species Act Arlington, Virginia Interagency Cooperation Division Silver Spring, Maryland May 19, 2014 Table of Contents 1.0 Consultation History ................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Description of the Proposed Action ......................................................................... 2 2.1 EPA Requirements ....................................................................................................................4 2.2 Owner or Operator Requirements.............................................................................................4 2.2.1 Permit Application .............................................................................................................5 2.2.3 BTA Standards for Impingement Mortality .........................................................................7 2.2.4 BTA Standards for Entrainment ..........................................................................................9 2.2.5 Monitoring ........................................................................................................................9 2.2.6 Reporting ........................................................................................................................ 10 2.2.7 Incidental Take ................................................................................................................ 11 2.3 Director Requirements ........................................................................................................... 11 2.3.1 Permit Application ........................................................................................................... 12 2.3.2 Permitting Requirements ................................................................................................. 12 2.3.3 Impingement ................................................................................................................... 14 2.3.4 Entrainment .................................................................................................................... 14 2.3.5 Monitoring and Reporting................................................................................................ 16 2.3.6 Incidental Take ............................................................................................................... 16 2.3.7 Permit Notification ......................................................................................................... 16 2.3.8 Permit Modification ........................................................................................................ 17 3.0 Approach to the Assessment .................................................................................. 17 4.0 Action Area ................................................................................................................ 18 5.0 Status of the Species ................................................................................................ 21 6.0 Environmental Baseline ........................................................................................... 28 7.0 Effects of the Action ................................................................................................. 35 7.1 Programmatic Approach ................................................................................................... 35 1.1.1 Scope......................................................................................................................... 37 1.1.2 Stressors ................................................................................................................... 40 1.1.3 Minimization of likely adverse effects ................................................................... 56 1.1.4 Identifies, informs, encourages, and screen applicants for potential eligibility under the Rule 62 1.1.5 Monitoring and evaluation of adverse effects ............................................................... 63 1.1.6 Compliance .................................................................................................................. 64 1.1.7 Adaptive management ................................................................................................. 65 8.0 Cumulative Effects ......................................................................................................... 66 9.0 Integration and Synthesis of Effects ............................................................................... 67 10.0 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 71 i 11.0 Incidental Take Statement ........................................................................................... 75 12.0 Reasonable and Prudent Measures .............................................................................. 76 13.0 Terms and Conditions .................................................................................................. 76 14.0 Conservation Recommendations .................................................................................. 78 15.0 Reintiation Notice ........................................................................................................ 78 16.0 Literature Cited ............................................................................................................ 80 ii 1.0 Consultation History On July 9, 2004, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated regulations establishing requirements for Cooling Water
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Native Freshwater Mussels
    Native Freshwater Mussels Freshwater mussels, sometimes called clams, have always been and continue to be, an important food source for muskrat, minks, FACT SHEET raccoons, otters, fishes, and some birds such as herons. Historically, written by John Tautin Native Americans not only ate mussels but also used the shells for utensils, tools, and to make jewelry. Between the late 1800s and mid-1900s, shells were harvested to supply a multi- fluted shell million dollar pearl button industry. However, with the Lasmigona costata invention and widespread use of plastics during the 1940-50s, the pearl button industry collapsed. But by the 1950s the Japanese found a new use for mussel shells in cultured pearl production. e shells are cut and finished into beads and inserted into oysters to serve as nuclei for pearls. Still today, thousands of tons of mussel shells (especially Washboard, Mapleleaf, and ree-ridge mussels) are exported from the United States to Japan for this purpose. Elktoe Worldwide, there are about one thousand species of mussels. Mussels Alasmidonta marginata can be found on every continent but Antarctica. While the entire continent of Europe only has eight different species of mussels, there are twenty-five different species of mussels in French Creek, and about three-hundred in the United States. ese important animals are threatened, however. Today, over half of the species of mussel in the Midwest are threatened or endangered. In the French Creek watershed, thirteen species of mussels are listed as endan- gered or threatened in Pennsylvania. Four species (the northern riffleshell, kidney shell and clubshell, rayed bean, and snuffbox) are endangered at the federal level.
    [Show full text]
  • Verdeca 011718 Draft Hi Yield Soy Bean EA
    Verdeca Petition (17-223-01p) for Determination of Nonregulated Status for HB4 Soybean (Event IND- 00410-5) Genetically Engineered for Increased Yield and Resistance to Glufosinate-Ammonium OECD Unique Identifier: IND-00410-5 Final Environmental Assessment May 2019 Agency Contact Cindy Eck Biotechnology Regulatory Services 4700 River Road USDA, APHIS Riverdale, MD 20737 Fax: (301) 734-8669 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’S TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide specific information. This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended. i ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Guiding Species Recovery Through Assessment of Spatial And
    Guiding Species Recovery through Assessment of Spatial and Temporal Population Genetic Structure of Two Critically Endangered Freshwater Mussel Species (Bivalvia: Unionidae) Jess Walter Jones ( [email protected] ) United States Fish and Wildlife Service Timothy W. Lane Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries N J Eric M. Hallerman Virginia Tech: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Research Article Keywords: Freshwater mussels, Epioblasma brevidens, E. capsaeformis, endangered species, spatial and temporal genetic variation, effective population size, species recovery planning, conservation genetics Posted Date: March 16th, 2021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-282423/v1 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License Page 1/28 Abstract The Cumberlandian Combshell (Epioblasma brevidens) and Oyster Mussel (E. capsaeformis) are critically endangered freshwater mussel species native to the Tennessee and Cumberland River drainages, major tributaries of the Ohio River in the eastern United States. The Clinch River in northeastern Tennessee (TN) and southwestern Virginia (VA) harbors the only remaining stronghold population for either species, containing tens of thousands of individuals per species; however, a few smaller populations are still extant in other rivers. We collected and analyzed genetic data to assist with population restoration and recovery planning for both species. We used an 888 base-pair sequence of the mitochondrial NADH dehydrogenase 1 (ND1) gene and ten nuclear DNA microsatellite loci to assess patterns of genetic differentiation and diversity in populations at small and large spatial scales, and at a 9-year (2004 to 2013) temporal scale, which showed how quickly these populations can diverge from each other in a short time period.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Mussel Survey of Clinchport, Clinch River, Virginia: Augmentation Monitoring Site: 2006
    Freshwater Mussel Survey of Clinchport, Clinch River, Virginia: Augmentation Monitoring Site: 2006 By: Nathan L. Eckert, Joe J. Ferraro, Michael J. Pinder, and Brian T. Watson Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Wildlife Diversity Division October 28th, 2008 Table of Contents Introduction....................................................................................................................... 4 Objective ............................................................................................................................ 5 Study Area ......................................................................................................................... 6 Methods.............................................................................................................................. 6 Results .............................................................................................................................. 10 Semi-quantitative .................................................................................................. 10 Quantitative........................................................................................................... 11 Qualitative............................................................................................................. 12 Incidental............................................................................................................... 12 Discussion........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior
    Vol. 76 Thursday, No. 194 October 6, 2011 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Texas Fatmucket, Golden Orb, Smooth Pimpleback, Texas Pimpleback, and Texas Fawnsfoot as Threatened or Endangered; Proposed Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:27 Oct 05, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\06OCP2.SGM 06OCP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 62166 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2011 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary additional mussels from eastern Texas, Mowad, Texas State Administrator, U.S. the Texas heelsplitter (Potamilus Fish and Wildlife Service Fish and Wildlife Service (see amphichaenus) and Salina mucket (P. ADDRESSES); by telephone at 512–927– metnecktayi), were also included in this 50 CFR Part 17 3557; or by facsimile at 512–927–3592. petition. The petition incorporated all If you use a telecommunications device analyses, references, and documentation [FWS–R2–ES–2011–0079; MO 92210–0–0008 for the deaf (TDD), please call the provided by NatureServe in its online B2] Federal Information Relay Service database at http://www.natureserve.org/ Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. into the petition. Included in and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NatureServe was supporting information regarding the species’ Petition To List Texas Fatmucket, Background Golden Orb, Smooth Pimpleback, taxonomy and ecology, historical and Texas Pimpleback, and Texas Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 current distribution, present status, and Fawnsfoot as Threatened or U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Final Programmatic
    Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Final Programmatic Biological Opinion and Conference Opinion on the United States Department of the Interior Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement’s Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Title V Regulatory Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Program Division of Environmental Review Falls Church, Virginia October 16, 2020 Table of Contents 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................3 2 Consultation History .........................................................................................................4 3 Background .......................................................................................................................5 4 Description of the Action ...................................................................................................7 The Mining Process .............................................................................................................. 8 4.1.1 Exploration ........................................................................................................................ 8 4.1.2 Erosion and Sedimentation Controls .................................................................................. 9 4.1.3 Clearing and Grubbing ....................................................................................................... 9 4.1.4 Excavation of Overburden and Coal ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mississippi Natural Heritage Program Listed Species of Mississippi - 2018
    MISSISSIPPI NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM LISTED SPECIES OF MISSISSIPPI - 2018 - GLOBAL STATE FEDERAL STATE SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME RANK RANK STATUS STATUS ANIMALIA BIVALVIA UNIONOIDA UNIONIDAE ACTINONAIAS LIGAMENTINA MUCKET G5 S1 LE CYCLONAIAS TUBERCULATA PURPLE WARTYBACK G5 S1 LE ELLIPTIO ARCTATA DELICATE SPIKE G2G3Q S1 LE EPIOBLASMA BREVIDENS CUMBERLANDIAN COMBSHELL G1 S1 LE LE EPIOBLASMA PENITA SOUTHERN COMBSHELL G1 S1 LE LE EPIOBLASMA TRIQUETRA SNUFFBOX G3 S1 LE LE EURYNIA DILATATA SPIKE G5 S1 LE HAMIOTA PEROVALIS ORANGE-NACRE MUCKET G2 S1 LT LE MEDIONIDUS ACUTISSIMUS ALABAMA MOCCASINSHELL G2 S1 LT LE PLETHOBASUS CYPHYUS SHEEPNOSE G3 S1 LE LE PLEUROBEMA CURTUM BLACK CLUBSHELL GH SX LE LE PLEUROBEMA DECISUM SOUTHERN CLUBSHELL G2 S1 LE LE PLEUROBEMA MARSHALLI FLAT PIGTOE GX SX LE LE PLEUROBEMA OVIFORME TENNESSEE CLUBSHELL G2G3 SX LE PLEUROBEMA PEROVATUM OVATE CLUBSHELL G1 S1 LE LE PLEUROBEMA RUBRUM PYRAMID PIGTOE G2G3 S2 LE PLEUROBEMA TAITIANUM HEAVY PIGTOE G1 SX LE LE PLEURONAIA DOLABELLOIDES SLABSIDE PEARLYMUSSEL G2 S1 LE LE POTAMILUS CAPAX FAT POCKETBOOK G2 S1 LE LE POTAMILUS INFLATUS INFLATED HEELSPLITTER G1G2Q SH LT LE PTYCHOBRANCHUS FASCIOLARIS KIDNEYSHELL G4G5 S1 LE THELIDERMA CYLINDRICA CYLINDRICA RABBITSFOOT G3G4T3 S1 LT LE THELIDERMA METANEVRA MONKEYFACE G4 SX LE THELIDERMA STAPES STIRRUPSHELL GH SX LE LE MALACOSTRACA DECAPODA CAMBARIDAE CREASERINUS GORDONI CAMP SHELBY BURROWING CRAWFISH G1 S1 LE INSECTA COLEOPTERA SILPHIDAE NICROPHORUS AMERICANUS AMERICAN BURYING BEETLE G2G3 SX LE LE LEPIDOPTERA NYMPHALIDAE NEONYMPHA MITCHELLII MITCHELLII MITCHELL’S SATYR G2T2 S1 LE LE 24 September 2018 Page | 1 Page | 1 Cite the list as: Mississippi Natural Heritage Program, 2018. Listed Species of Mississippi. Museum of Natural Science, Mississippi Dept.
    [Show full text]
  • September 24, 2018
    September 24, 2018 Sent via Federal eRulemaking Portal to: http://www.regulations.gov Docket Nos. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0006 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0007 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0009 Bridget Fahey Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041-3808 [email protected] Craig Aubrey Chief, Division of Environmental Review Ecological Services Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041 [email protected] Samuel D. Rauch, III National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 [email protected] Re: Proposed Revisions of Endangered Species Act Regulations Dear Mr. Aubrey, Ms. Fahey, and Mr. Rauch: The Southern Environmental Law Center (“SELC”) submits the following comments in opposition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s and National Marine Fisheries Service’s proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act’s implementing regulations.1 We submit these comments on behalf of 57 organizations working to protect the natural resources of the 1 Revision of the Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,174 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17); Revision of Regulations for Interagency Cooperation, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,178 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 402); Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,193 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Pleurobema Clava Lamarck Northern Northern Clubshell Clubshell, Page 1
    Pleurobema clava Lamarck Northern Northern Clubshell Clubshell, Page 1 State Distribution Photograph courtesy of Kevin S.Cummings, Illinois Natural History Survey Best Survey Period Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Status: State and Federally listed as Endangered umbos located close to the anterior end of the shell. Viewed from the top, the clubshell is wedge-shaped Global and state ranks: G2/S1 tapering towards the posterior end. Maximum length is approximately 3 ½ inches (90mm). The shell is tan/ Family: Unionidae (Pearly mussels) yellow, with broad, dark green rays that are almost always present and are interrupted at the growth rings. Total range: Historically, the clubshell was present in There is often a crease or groove near the center of the the Wabash, Ohio, Kanawha, Kentucky, Green, shell running perpendicular to the annular growth rings. Monogahela, and Alleghany Rivers and their tributaries. Beak sculpture consists of a few small bumps or loops, Its range covered an area from Michigan south to or is absent. Alabama, and Illinois east to Pennsylvania. The The clubshell has well-developed lateral and pseudo- clubshell currently occurs in 12 streams within the cardinal teeth and a white nacre. Shells of males and Tennessee, Cumberland, Lake Erie, and Ohio drainages. females are morphologically similar. Similar species These include the St. Joseph River in Michigan (Badra found in Michigan include the kidneyshell and Goforth 2001) and Ohio (Watters 1988), (Ptychobranchus fasciolaris) which is much more Pymatuning Creek (Ohio)(Huehner and Corr 1994), compressed laterally than the clubshell and has a kidney Little Darby Creek (Ohio), Fish Creek (Ohio and shaped outline; the round pigtoe (Pleurobema sintoxia) Indiana), Tippecanoe River (Indiana), French Creek which has a more circular outline and does not have (Pennsylvania), and the Elk River (West Virginia).
    [Show full text]
  • A Revision of the Marsh Wrens of California. 1
    308 Swarth, Marsh Wrens of California. \ia\y October 16. White-throated Sparrow, Ruby-crowned Kinglet. 17. Cowbird, Myrtle Warbler. 18. Bewick's Wren. 20. Vesper Sparrow. 21. Swamp Sparrow. 24. Pipit. 2ti. Wilson's Snipe. 28. Rusty Blackbird. 31. Slate-colored Junco. November 2. Purple Grackle. 4. Purple Finch. 10. Mallard. 15. Fox Sparrow. 21. Pine Siskin. 23. Short-eared Owl. A REVISION OF THE MARSH WRENS OF CALIFORNIA. 1 BY HARRY S. SWARTH. An extensive series of marsh wrens from the delta region east of San Francisco Bay has been accumulated in the California Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, chiefly through the personal efforts of Misses Annie M. Alexander and Louise Kellogg. The appear- ance of these birds contrasts so strongly with specimens avail- able from other parts of California that it has seemed desirable to make a careful study of their systematic status. With this object in view, as many specimens as possible have been assembled illustrative of the Long-billed Marsh Wren (Tclmatodytcs palustris) upon the Pacific Coast, especially in ( alifornia. Although each of the several collections examined or appealed to contained but a meager representation of the species, still, by assembling material 1 Contribution from the University of California Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Vol. VWIVl Swarth, Marsh 1917 J Wrens of California, 309 from many sources, and for the use of which specific acknowledg- ment is made beyond, a total of 2)59 skins became available. This series, while still leaving gaps to be filled before any precise plotting of breeding ranges can be made, is more than any previous student Points from which specimens were ex- amined: D Telmatodyles p.
    [Show full text]
  • 550. Regulations for General Public Use Activities on All State Wildlife Areas Listed
    550. Regulations for General Public Use Activities on All State Wildlife Areas Listed Below. (a) State Wildlife Areas: (1) Antelope Valley Wildlife Area (Sierra County) (Type C); (2) Ash Creek Wildlife Area (Lassen and Modoc counties) (Type B); (3) Bass Hill Wildlife Area (Lassen County), including the Egan Management Unit (Type C); (4) Battle Creek Wildlife Area (Shasta and Tehama counties); (5) Big Lagoon Wildlife Area (Humboldt County) (Type C); (6) Big Sandy Wildlife Area (Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties) (Type C); (7) Biscar Wildlife Area (Lassen County) (Type C); (8) Buttermilk Country Wildlife Area (Inyo County) (Type C); (9) Butte Valley Wildlife Area (Siskiyou County) (Type B); (10) Cache Creek Wildlife Area (Colusa and Lake counties), including the Destanella Flat and Harley Gulch management units (Type C); (11) Camp Cady Wildlife Area (San Bernadino County) (Type C); (12) Cantara/Ney Springs Wildlife Area (Siskiyou County) (Type C); (13) Cedar Roughs Wildlife Area (Napa County) (Type C); (14) Cinder Flats Wildlife Area (Shasta County) (Type C); (15) Collins Eddy Wildlife Area (Sutter and Yolo counties) (Type C); (16) Colusa Bypass Wildlife Area (Colusa County) (Type C); (17) Coon Hollow Wildlife Area (Butte County) (Type C); (18) Cottonwood Creek Wildlife Area (Merced County), including the Upper Cottonwood and Lower Cottonwood management units (Type C); (19) Crescent City Marsh Wildlife Area (Del Norte County); (20) Crocker Meadow Wildlife Area (Plumas County) (Type C); (21) Daugherty Hill Wildlife Area (Yuba County)
    [Show full text]