DOCSLIB.ORG

Suisun Marsh Plan-Chap 6

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Suisun Marsh Plan-Chap 6 Chapter 6 Biological Environment This chapter provides environmental analyses relative to biological parameters of the project area. Components of this study include a setting discussion, impact analysis criteria, project effects and significance, and applicable mitigation measures. This chapter is organized as follows: Section 6.1, “Fish”; Section 6.2, “Vegetation and Wetlands”; and Section 6.3, “Wildlife.” Suisun Marsh Habitat Management, November 2011 Preservation, and Restoration Plan 6-1 Final EIS/EIR ICF 06888.06 Section 6.1 Fish Introduction This section describes the existing environmental conditions and the consequences of implementing tidal wetland restoration and managed wetland activities on fisheries resources. The Affected Environment discussion below describes the current setting of the plan area. The purpose of this information is to establish the existing environmental context against which the reader can understand the environmental changes caused by the action. This information is intended to be directly or indirectly relevant to the subsequent discussion of impacts. The environmental changes associated with the alternatives are discussed under Impact Analysis. This section identifies impacts, describes how they would occur, and prescribes mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts, if necessary. Summary of Impacts Implementation of the SMP would include breaching levees to restore tidal wetlands, and increased frequency of implementation of some managed wetland activities such as repairing and upgrading existing levees, replacing infrastructure, installing fish screens, and new activities such as dredging. These actions could affect fish and fish habitat in Suisun Marsh. Repair and breaching of levees would result in less than significant impacts because environmental commitments (Chapter 2, “Environmental Commitments”) including avoidance and minimization measures, such as construction work windows, will be implemented to reduce impacts on water quality and fish in the immediate construction area. Dredging would affect fish habitat by increasing channel depth and temporarily removing benthic organisms. Additional risks to fish from dredging include injury or mortality by the dredger or benthic disturbance (especially through mobilization of fine sediments) during the dredging process itself. Creation of subtidal and low intertidal wetland habitat, through tidal restoration, will provide resting and foraging habitat for special-status fish species and possibly spawning habitat for delta smelt and Sacramento splittail. Special-status fish species will derive indirect benefits from exported primary and secondary pelagic production in low, mid and high marsh areas. Suisun Marsh Habitat Management, November 2011 Preservation, and Restoration Plan 6.1-1 Final EIS/EIR ICF 06888.06 California Department of Fish and Game, 6.1 Fish U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Reclamation Table 6.1-1 presents a summary of the impacts on fish and any associated mitigation measures for each plan alternative. In most instances, environmental commitments will be implemented to reduce the aggregate impacts to less-than- significant levels. Table 6.1-1. Summary of Fish Impacts Significance Mitigation Significance Impact Alternative before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Restoration Impacts FISH-1: Construction-Related Temporary Impairment of A, B, C Less than None – Fish Survival, Growth, and Reproduction by Accidental significant required Spills or Runoff of Contaminants (Heavy Metals) FISH-2: Construction-Related Temporary Reduction of A, B, C Less than None – Special-Status Fish Rearing Habitat Quality or Quantity significant required through Increased Input and Mobilization of Sediment FISH-3: Short-Term Impairment of Delta Smelt Passage A, B, C Less than None – and Reduced Availability of Spawning and Rearing significant required Habitat Resulting from Changes in Channel Morphology and Hydraulics Attributable to Restoration Activities FISH-4: Short-Term Impairment of Chinook Salmon A, B, C Less than None – Passage and Reduced Availability of Rearing Habitat significant required Resulting from Changes in Channel Morphology and Hydraulics Attributable to Restoration Activities FISH-5: Short-Term Impairment of Steelhead Passage A, B, C Less than None – and Reduced Availability of Rearing Habitat Resulting significant required from Changes in Channel Morphology and Hydraulics Attributable to Restoration Activities FISH-6: Short-Term Impairment of Green Sturgeon A, B, C Less than None – Passage and Reduced Availability of Holding and significant required Rearing Habitat Resulting from Changes in Channel Morphology and Hydraulics Attributable to Restoration Activities FISH-7: Short-Term Impairment of Sacramento Splittail A, B, C Less than None – Passage and Reduced Availability of Rearing Habitat significant required Resulting from Changes in Velocity Attributable to Restoration Activities FISH-8: Short-Term Impairment of Longfin Smelt A, B, C Less than None – Passage and Reduced Availability of Rearing Habitat significant required Resulting from Changes in Velocity Attributable to Restoration Activities FISH-9: Temporary Reduction of Delta Smelt Habitat A, B, C Less than None – Quantity or Quality through Removal and Destruction of significant required Cover Attributable to Restoration Activities FISH-10: Temporary Reduction of Chinook Salmon A, B, C Less than None – Habitat Quantity or Quality through Removal and significant required Destruction of Cover as a Result of Restoration Activities Suisun Marsh Habitat Management, November 2011 Preservation, and Restoration Plan 6.1-2 Final EIS/EIR ICF 06888.06 California Department of Fish and Game, 6.1 Fish U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Reclamation Significance Mitigation Significance Impact Alternative before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation FISH-11: Temporary Reduction of Steelhead Habitat A, B, C Less than None – Quantity or Quality through Removal and Destruction of significant required Cover as a Result of Restoration Activities FISH-12: Temporary Reduction of Green Sturgeon A, B, C Less than None – Habitat Quantity or Quality as a Result of Restoration significant required Activities FISH-13: Temporary Reduction of Sacramento Splittail A, B, C Less than None – Habitat Quantity or Quality through Removal and significant required Destruction of Cover as a Result of Restoration Activities FISH-14: Temporary Reduction of Longfin Smelt A, B, C Less than None – Habitat Quantity or Quality through Removal and significant required Destruction of Cover as a Result of Restoration Activities FISH-15: Improved Fish Habitat Due to Increased A, B, C Beneficial None – Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations in Tidal Channels required Attributable to Restoration Activities FISH-16: Salinity–Related Reduction of Delta Smelt A, B, C Less than None – Survival, Growth, Movement, or Reproduction significant required Attributable to Restoration Activities FISH-17: Salinity–Related Reduction of Chinook A, B, C Less than None – Salmon Survival, Growth, or Movement as a Result of significant required Restoration Activities FISH-18: Salinity–Related Reduction of Steelhead A, B, C Less than None – Survival, Growth, or Movement as a Result of significant required Restoration Activities FISH-19: Salinity–Related Reduction of Green Sturgeon A, B, C Less than None – Survival, Growth, or Movement as a Result of significant required Restoration Activities FISH-20: Salinity–Related Reduction of Sacramento A, B, C Less than None – Splittail Survival, Growth, Movement, or Reproduction significant required as a Result of Restoration Activities FISH-21: Salinity–Related Reduction of Longfin Smelt A, B, C Less than None – Survival, Growth, Movement, or Reproduction as a significant required Result of Restoration Activities FISH-22: Disturbance, Injury, or Mortality of Individual A, B, C Less than None – Fish Resulting from Work Adjacent to Bodies of Water significant required FISH-23: Change in Fish Species Composition A, B, C Less than None – Attributable to Changes in Salinity or Water Quality significant required from Managed or Natural Wetland Modifications FISH-24: Change in Benthic Macroinvertebrate A, B, C Less than None – Composition Attributable to Changes in Channel significant required Morphology and Hydraulics as a Result of Tidal Restoration FISH-25: Change in Primary Productivity as a Result of A, B, C Beneficial – – Tidal Restoration Suisun Marsh Habitat Management, November 2011 Preservation, and Restoration Plan 6.1-3 Final EIS/EIR ICF 06888.06 California Department of Fish and Game, 6.1 Fish U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Reclamation Significance Mitigation Significance Impact Alternative before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Managed Wetland Activities Impacts FISH-26: Construction-Related Temporary Impairment A, B, C Less than None – of Fish Survival, Growth, and Reproduction by significant required Accidental Spills or Runoff of Contaminants (Heavy Metals) FISH-27: Construction-Related Temporary Reduction of A, B, C Less than None – Fish Rearing Habitat Quality or Quantity through significant required Increased Input and Mobilization of Sediment FISH-28: Construction-Related Mortality of Fish from A, B, C Less than None – Stranding significant required FISH-29: Temporary Reduction of Delta Smelt, Chinook A, B, C Less than None – Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Quantity or Quality significant required Attributable to Management Activities
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Μ and Statewide Resources Office
    Woodland RD Name RD Number Atlas Tract 2126 5 !"#$ Bacon Island 2028 !"#$80 Bethel Island BIMID Bishop Tract 2042 16 ·|}þ Bixler Tract 2121 Lovdal Boggs Tract 0404 ·|}þ113 District Sacramento River at I Street Bridge Bouldin Island 0756 80 Gaging Station )*+,- Brack Tract 2033 Bradford Island 2059 ·|}þ160 Brannan-Andrus BALMD Lovdal 50 Byron Tract 0800 Sacramento Weir District ¤£ r Cache Haas Area 2098 Y o l o ive Canal Ranch 2086 R Mather Can-Can/Greenhead 2139 Sacramento ican mer Air Force Chadbourne 2034 A Base Coney Island 2117 Port of Dead Horse Island 2111 Sacramento ¤£50 Davis !"#$80 Denverton Slough 2134 West Sacramento Drexler Tract Drexler Dutch Slough 2137 West Egbert Tract 0536 Winters Sacramento Ehrheardt Club 0813 Putah Creek ·|}þ160 ·|}þ16 Empire Tract 2029 ·|}þ84 Fabian Tract 0773 Sacramento Fay Island 2113 ·|}þ128 South Fork Putah Creek Executive Airport Frost Lake 2129 haven s Lake Green d n Glanville 1002 a l r Florin e h Glide District 0765 t S a c r a m e n t o e N Glide EBMUD Grand Island 0003 District Pocket Freeport Grizzly West 2136 Lake Intake Hastings Tract 2060 l Holland Tract 2025 Berryessa e n Holt Station 2116 n Freeport 505 h Honker Bay 2130 %&'( a g strict Elk Grove u Lisbon Di Hotchkiss Tract 0799 h lo S C Jersey Island 0830 Babe l Dixon p s i Kasson District 2085 s h a King Island 2044 S p Libby Mcneil 0369 y r !"#$5 ·|}þ99 B e !"#$80 t Liberty Island 2093 o l a Lisbon District 0307 o Clarksburg Y W l a Little Egbert Tract 2084 S o l a n o n p a r C Little Holland Tract 2120 e in e a e M Little Mandeville
    [Show full text]
  • Programmatic Environmental Impact Report
    Water Hyacinth Control Program FINAL Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Volume I – Chapters 1 to 7 November 30, 2009 A program for effective control of Water Hyacinth in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and its tributaries. Copies of this Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report in hard copy form, or on computer compact disc (CD), can be obtained from the California Department of Boating and Waterways. To request a report copy, please contact: Ms. Terri Ely Aquatic Weed Program California Department of Boating and Waterways 2000 Evergreen Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, California 95815 (916) 263-8138 [email protected] Cover photo: March 14, 2008, by NewPoint Group, Inc., of the Wheeler Island Duck Club, at Honker Bay. [PARTIAL] Water Hyacinth Control Program Water Hyacinth Control Program A program for effective control of Water Hyacinth in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and its tributaries. FINAL Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Volume I – Chapters 1 to 7 November 30, 2009 Prepared by: The California Department of Boating and Waterways With Technical Assistance from: NewPoint Group, Inc. 2555 Third Street, Suite 215 Sacramento, California 95818 (916) 442-0508 www.newpointgroup.com ~----Pei:at f~m.A; _ _,__,..._... AniJru--~- ' --sepat Table of Contents Volume I – Chapters 1 to 7 Page Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................... AA-1 Executive Summary.......................................................................... ES-1 1. Introduction ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • GRA 9 – South Delta
    2-900 .! 2-905 .! 2-950 .! 2-952 2-908 .! .! 2-910 .! 2-960 .! 2-915 .! 2-963 .! 2-964 2-965 .! .! 2-917 .! 2-970 2-920 ! .! . 2-922 .! 2-924 .! 2-974 .! San Joaquin County 2-980 2-929 .! .! 2-927 .! .! 2-925 2-932 2-940 Contra Costa .! .! County .! 2-930 2-935 .! Alameda 2-934 County ! . Sources: Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, USGS, Intermap, iPC, NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri (Thailand), TomTom, 2013 Calif. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Area Map Office of Spill Prevention and Response I Data Source: O SPR NAD_1983_C alifornia_Teale_Albers ACP2 - GRA9 Requestor: ACP Coordinator Author: J. Muskat Date Created: 5/2 Environmental Sensitive Sites Section 9849 – GRA 9 South Delta Table of Contents GRA 9 Map ............................................................................................................................... 1 Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... 2 Site Index/Response Action ...................................................................................................... 3 Summary of Response Resources for GRA 9......................................................................... 4 9849.1 Environmentally Sensitive Sites 2-900-A Old River Mouth at San Joaquin River....................................................... 1 2-905-A Franks Tract Complex................................................................................... 4 2-908-A Sand Mound Slough ..................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Transitions for the Delta Economy
    Transitions for the Delta Economy January 2012 Josué Medellín-Azuara, Ellen Hanak, Richard Howitt, and Jay Lund with research support from Molly Ferrell, Katherine Kramer, Michelle Lent, Davin Reed, and Elizabeth Stryjewski Supported with funding from the Watershed Sciences Center, University of California, Davis Summary The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta consists of some 737,000 acres of low-lying lands and channels at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers (Figure S1). This region lies at the very heart of California’s water policy debates, transporting vast flows of water from northern and eastern California to farming and population centers in the western and southern parts of the state. This critical water supply system is threatened by the likelihood that a large earthquake or other natural disaster could inflict catastrophic damage on its fragile levees, sending salt water toward the pumps at its southern edge. In another area of concern, water exports are currently under restriction while regulators and the courts seek to improve conditions for imperiled native fish. Leading policy proposals to address these issues include improvements in land and water management to benefit native species, and the development of a “dual conveyance” system for water exports, in which a new seismically resistant canal or tunnel would convey a portion of water supplies under or around the Delta instead of through the Delta’s channels. This focus on the Delta has caused considerable concern within the Delta itself, where residents and local governments have worried that changes in water supply and environmental management could harm the region’s economy and residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
    comparing futures for the sacramento–san joaquin delta jay lund | ellen hanak | william fleenor william bennett | richard howitt jeffrey mount | peter moyle 2008 Public Policy Institute of California Supported with funding from Stephen D. Bechtel Jr. and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation ISBN: 978-1-58213-130-6 Copyright © 2008 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. Summary “Once a landscape has been established, its origins are repressed from memory. It takes on the appearance of an ‘object’ which has been there, outside us, from the start.” Karatani Kojin (1993), Origins of Japanese Literature The Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta is the hub of California’s water supply system and the home of numerous native fish species, five of which already are listed as threatened or endangered. The recent rapid decline of populations of many of these fish species has been followed by court rulings restricting water exports from the Delta, focusing public and political attention on one of California’s most important and iconic water controversies.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project State Clearinghouse No. 2017012062
    FINAL ◦ MAY 2017 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project State Clearinghouse No. 2017012062 PREPARED FOR PREPARED BY Reclamation District No. 2028 Stillwater Sciences (Bacon Island) 279 Cousteau Place, Suite 400 343 East Main Street, Suite 815 Davis, CA 95618 Stockton, CA 95202 Stillwater Sciences FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project Suggested citation: Reclamation District No. 2028. 2016. Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project. Prepared by Stillwater Sciences, Davis, California for Reclamation District No. 2028 (Bacon Island), Stockton, California. Cover photo: View of Bacon Island’s northwestern levee corner and surrounding interior lands. May 2017 Stillwater Sciences i FINAL Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project PROJECT SUMMARY Project title Bacon Island Levee Rehabilitation Project Reclamation District No. 2028 CEQA lead agency name (Bacon Island) and address 343 East Main Street, Suite 815 Stockton, California 95202 Department of Water Resources (DWR) Andrea Lobato, Manager CEQA responsible agencies The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) Deirdre West, Environmental Planning Manager David A. Forkel Chairman, Board of Trustees Reclamation District No. 2028 343 East Main Street, Suite 815 Stockton, California 95202 Cell: (510) 693-9977 Nate Hershey, P.E. Contact person and phone District
    [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]
  • 2. the Legacies of Delta History
    2. TheLegaciesofDeltaHistory “You could not step twice into the same river; for other waters are ever flowing on to you.” Heraclitus (540 BC–480 BC) The modern history of the Delta reveals profound geologic and social changes that began with European settlement in the mid-19th century. After 1800, the Delta evolved from a fishing, hunting, and foraging site for Native Americans (primarily Miwok and Wintun tribes), to a transportation network for explorers and settlers, to a major agrarian resource for California, and finally to the hub of the water supply system for San Joaquin Valley agriculture and Southern California cities. Central to these transformations was the conversion of vast areas of tidal wetlands into islands of farmland surrounded by levees. Much like the history of the Florida Everglades (Grunwald, 2006), each transformation was made without the benefit of knowing future needs and uses; collectively these changes have brought the Delta to its current state. Pre-European Delta: Fluctuating Salinity and Lands As originally found by European explorers, nearly 60 percent of the Delta was submerged by daily tides, and spring tides could submerge it entirely.1 Large areas were also subject to seasonal river flooding. Although most of the Delta was a tidal wetland, the water within the interior remained primarily fresh. However, early explorers reported evidence of saltwater intrusion during the summer months in some years (Jackson and Paterson, 1977). Dominant vegetation included tules—marsh plants that live in fresh and brackish water. On higher ground, including the numerous natural levees formed by silt deposits, plant life consisted of coarse grasses; willows; blackberry and wild rose thickets; and galleries of oak, sycamore, alder, walnut, and cottonwood.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish Community Ecology in an Altered River Delta: Spatial Patterns in Species Composition, Life History Strategies, and Biomass
    Estuaries Vol. 28, No. 5, p. 776–785 October 2005 Fish Community Ecology in an Altered River Delta: Spatial Patterns in Species Composition, Life History Strategies, and Biomass MATTHEW L. NOBRIGA1,*, FREDERICK FEYRER1,RANDALL D. BAXTER2, and MICHAEL CHOTKOWSKI3 1 California Department of Water Resources, Ecological Studies Branch, 3251 S Street, Sacramento, California 95816 2 California Department of Fish and Game, Central Valley Bay-Delta Branch, 4001 North Wilson Way, Stockton, California 95205 3 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, California 95825 ABSTRACT: We sampled nearshore fishes in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, United States, during 2001 and 2003 with beach seines and gill nets. We addressed three questions. How and why did fish assemblages vary, and what local habitat features best explained the variation? Did spatial variation in assemblages reflect greater success of particular life history strategies? Did fish biomass vary among years or across habitats? Nonmetric multidimensional scaling showed that habitat variables had more influence on fish assemblages than temporal variables. Results from both gear types indicated fish assemblages varied between Sacramento and San Joaquin River sampling sites. Results from gill net sampling were less pronounced than those from beach seine sampling. The Sacramento and San Joaquin river sites differed most notably in terms of water clarity and abundance of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), suggesting a link between these habitat characteristics and
    [Show full text]
  • State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2007
    State of California Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan 2007 Prepared by: The Governor’s Office of Emergency Services 3650 Schriever Avenue Mather, CA 95655 www.oes.ca.gov With support from: City and Regional Planning Department Community Safety & Sustainability Group Faculty Advisors and Consultants California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, CA 93407-0283 Public Comment Draft Table of Contents Chapter 1 - The Planning Process ................................................................................... 1 1.0 Chapter Summary ..................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Purpose of the Plan ............................................................................................ 2 1.2 Plan Overview........................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Planning Process Components.................................................................................. 5 1.3.1 Plan Update Procedure........................................................................................... 5 1.3.2 Coordination of Agencies and Departments.......................................................... 7 1.3.3 Integration with Other Planning Efforts .............................................................. 10 1.4 Public Involvement ................................................................................................. 14 1.5 Adoption by the State.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • P0876-P0879.Pdf
    876 SHORT COMMUNICATIONS od, temperature and diet quality. Physiol. Zool. Calow [eds.], Physiologicalecology: an evolution- 66537-560. ary approach to resourceuse. Blackwell, Oxford. NOVOA, F. F. 1993. Ecofisiologiade Zonotrichia ca- STEEL, R. G. D., ANDJ. H. TORRIE. 1985. Bioestad- pensis:cambios estacionalesen el gasto y la ad- istica: principios y procedimientos.McGraw-Hill, quisici6n de energia. Ph.D. diss., Universidad Bogota. Chile, Santiago. WALSBERG, G. E., AND C. W. THOMPSON. 1990. An- SIBLEY, R. M. 1981. Strategiesin digestionand defe- nual changesin gizzard size and function in a fru- cation, p. 109-139. In C. R. Townsend and P. givorous bird. Condor 92~794-795. The Condor 98:876-879 0 The CooperOrnithological Society 1996 WINTERING SWAINSONS’ HAWKS IN CALIFORNIAS’ SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN RIVER DELTA ’ SEBASTIANK. HERXKY Department of Wildlife, Fish, and ConservationBiology, Universityof California at Davis, Davis, CA 95616 Key words: Swainsons’ Hawk; Buteo swainsoni; served foraging flocks of up to 16 Swainson’s Hawks natural history; winter distribution;Sacramento-San on five Delta islands previna on small rodents in close JoaquinRiver Delta. associationwith farming operations. The objective of the present study was to systematically monitor the The Swainson’s Hawk (Buteoswainsoni) is considered population to determine wintering seasonchronology, a summer resident breeder on lame Darts of North size, composition, distribution, and foraging ecology. America, leaving in winter to migrate south to South STUDY AREA AND METHODS America (AOU 1983, Palmer 1988). Wintering Swain- son’s Hawks in North America had been confirmed The study area was in the Sacramento-SanJoaauin only from southernFlorida, where somejuveniles were River Delta in the Central ValIey ofCalifornia (38005’N, found during most winters, and from the southwestern 121”35’w) (Fia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Status of Beavers in California
    SI A IE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF FISH AND GAME GAME BULLETIN No. 3 The Status of Beavers in California BY DONALD T. TAPPE 1942 17013 printed 111 CA!.1PORNJA :HATE PRINTING OFFICE S,<\CII.AMFNTO: r942 GF:ORGE H. MOOR.E, 5-TATE PRINTER ~,1C H r5 1'5(1:J4J ';;U/'/61 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF FISH AND GAME GAME BULLETIN No. 3 The Status of Beavers in California BY DONALD T. TAPPE Museum of Vertebrate Zoology and Division of Fish and Game in cooperation with Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project, California 2-R 1942 17613 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ____________________________________________ -----_______ _ HISTORY OF DEAVERS IN CALIFOHNIA_________________________________ _ ENACTED LEGISLATION CONCERNING THE DEAVERS OF CALIFURNL"'__ 11 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF' COLONIES _________________________ .______ 1:', Beaver Colonies of Northern California and the Sierra J:\"varl"______________ 16 Beaver Colonies of the Great VallE'Y of CaIifornia _______________ .______________ ~O Beayer Colonies of Southcfl,stern California___________________________________ 2:1 PRESENT ECONOMIC STATeS OF THE BI£AVERS OF CAI.IFORNIA________ ;10 HABITAT HEQUIREMENTS _____________ __________________________________ :l;, THE PLANTED DJ<JAVEH COL01':IES IN CALIFORNIA_________________ 41 FUTURE OF BEAVERS IN CALIFORNIA_______ ______________________ ,." RECOMMENDAT IONS ________________________________________ ___ _ ___________ ;,:; LITERATURE CITED ________________________________________________________. :;, (3 ) The Status of Beavers in California By DONALD T. TAPPE INTRODUCTION '1'he beaver is the largest of all the several hundred kinds of rodents in North America (fig. 1). It is one of the most valuable fnr-bearing mamlllals, and aside from man it is the onl~" animal capa ble of materially altering its environment to suit its needs.
    [Show full text]