DOCSLIB.ORG

United States Department of the Interior MAR 2 7 2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States Department of the Interior MAR 2 7 2019 U,S. FISH & WILDLIFE S1:!;RVICE United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ' .' Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office �-,.111,'"!il'f; In Reply Refer to: 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605 0SESMF00- Sacramento, California 95825-1846 2018-F-3331-1 MAR 2 7 2019 Mr. Alessandro Amaglio RegionalEnvironmental Officer, Region IX Federal Emergency Management Agency 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, California 94607 Subject: Programmatic Formal Section 7 Consultationon Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster, Mitigation, and Preparedness Programs within the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office'sJurisdiction, California Dear Mr. Amaglio: This letter is in response to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) request to initiate formalsection 7 consultationunder the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), and provides the U.S. Fish and WildlifeServic e's (Service) programmatic biological opinion on FEMA's Disaster, Mitigation, and Preparedness Programs (proposed project) in Californiaas described in FEMA's June 20, 2018 Programmatic Biological Assessmentfor Disaster, Mitigation, and PreparednessPrograms in California (programmatic biological assessment). We received your June 20, 2018, letter requestinginitiation of consultation in our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (SFWO) on June 20, 2018. On September 14, 2018, we received a letter fromFEMA changing effectsdeterminations for 20 species. At issue are the effects of FEMA's proposed action on 35 federally-listed species and their designated or proposed criticalhabitats which the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office has lead responsibility and seven federally-listed species and their critical habitat which occur within the jurisdiction of the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office but for which other Service field officeshave lead responsibility. FEMA requested formal consultation based on your determinationthat the proposed project may affect, and is likely to adversely affectthe following 17 federally-listed species and their designated critical habitat, and may affect, but not likely to adversely affect the following 25 federally-listed species and their designated critical habitat. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife OfficeSpecies I.ike/yto AdversefyAffect Californiared-legged frog (Rana drqytoniz) (Threatened) and critical habitat Californiatiger salamander (Amlrystoma californiense) • Central California DPS (Threatened) and critical habitat • Sonoma DPS (Endangered) and critical habitat Giant garter snake (Threatened) (Thamnophis gigas) Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis e111yxa11thtts) (Threatened) and critical habitat Valley elderberry longhornbeetle (Desmocents californicttsdimorphtts) (Threatened)and critical habitat Mr. Alessandro Amaglio 2 California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris pacijica) (Endangered) Bay checkerspot butterfly (Ettpl?Jdryas editha bqyensis) (Threatened) and critical habitat Callippe silverspot butterfly (Spryetia callippe callippe) (Endangered) Myrtle's silverspot butterfly (Spryeria zerene myttleae) (Endangered) Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta !Jnchz) (Threatened) and critical habitat Vernalpool tadpole shrimp (Lepidttt7ts packardz) (Endangered) and critical habitat Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservatio) (Endangered) and criticalhabitat Longhorn fairy shrimp (Branchinecta l011gJa11te1111a) (Endangered) and critical habitat Sacramento Orcutt grass (Orc11ttia viscida) (Endangered) and critical habitat Not Like!Jto Adverse!JAffect J\ilission blue butterfly (Icmiciaicarioides missionemis [= Plebejtts icatioides missio11e11sis]) (Endangered) San Bruno elfin butterfly ( Callophrys mossii bqyensis) (Endangered) Burke's goldfields (Lasthenia b11rkez) (Endangered) Butte County meadowfoam (Limnanthesfloccosassp. californica) (Endangered) and critical habitat Calistoga allocarya (Plagiobothrys stricttts) (Endangered) Colusa grass (Neostapfia colttsana) (Threatened) and critical habitat Contra Costa goldfields (Lasthenia COf!jttgem) (Endangered) and its critical habitat Few-flowered navarretia (Navarretia le11cocephalassp. paucijlora [=N. pauciflora]) (Endangered) Fleshy owl's-clover (Castilleja campestris ssp. sttccttlenta) (Threatened) and critical habitat Greene's tuctoria (Tt1cto1ia greenez) (Endangered) and critical habitat Hairy Orcutt grass (Orc11ttia pilosa) (Endangered) and critical habitat Hoover's spurge (Chamaesyce hooveri [=Euphorbia hooven]) (Threatened) and critical habitat Lake County stonecrop (Parvised11m leiocatp11m [=Sedella leiocatpa]) (Endangered) Loch Lomond coyote thistle (Ery11gi11m constancet) (Endangered) Many-flowered navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. plieantha) (Endangered) San Joaquin Orcutt grass ( Orc11ttia inaequalis) (Threatened) and critical habitat Sebastopol meadowfoam(Limnanthes V'incttlans) (Endangered) Slender Orcutt grass (Orcuttiatenuis) (Threatened) and critical habitat Solano grass (T11cto1ia mucronata) (Endangered) and critical habitat Sonoma sunshine (Blennosperma baken) (Endangered) Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Species Like!J to Adverse!JAffect Least bell's vireo (Vitw be/Iii pusilltts) (Endangered) 1VlqyAffect, Not Like!J to Adverse!JAffect Californialeast tern (Sterna antillamm browm) (Endangered) Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax trail/ii extimus) (Endangered) and critical habitat Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office Species Like!J to Adverse!JAffect Tidewater goby (Emyclogobi11s newberryz) (Endangered) and critical habitat Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office Species 1VlqyAffect, Not Like!J to Adverse!JAffect Western snowy plover (Charadri11snivostts ssp. 11ivos11s) (Threatened) and critical habitat Mr. Alessandro Amaglio 3 Marbled murrelet (Bracf?yramphtts marmoratus) (Threatened) and critical habitat Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office Species MqyAffect, Not Like/y to Adverse/yAffect Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis cattrina) (Threatened) and critical habitat Based on our review of the informationprovided in FEMA's June 20, 2018, programmatic biological assessment, the Service concurs that the proposed project may affect,but is not likely to adversely affect the 25 federally-listed species listed above and theirrespective critical habitat. The general avoidance and minimization measures and species-specific conservation measures will help ensure that adverse effects to the species from proposed project activities are likely to be insignificant. If any activityproposed by a FEMA Subapplicant ( entity that has applied to receive a FEMA grant administered by the state or federally-recognized tribe) demonstrates the potential to adversely affect any of these 25 species or their critical habitat, that project willnot be covered by this programmatic biological opinion and FEMA will submit that project forformal consultation. The remainder of this document provides our programmatic biological opinion on the effects of the proposed action on the remaining 17 species. This programmatic biological opinion is based on informationprovided in the following: (1) FEMA's Programmatic Biological Assessmentfor Disaste1� Mitigation, and PreparednessPrograms in California, dated June 20, 2018; (2) FEMA's September 14, 2018 letter changingeffects determinations for20 species; (3) conversations and emails between the Service (C. Martin and J. Knight) and FEMA staff or their contracted agents, (S. Amaglio, L. Solorzano-Vincent.); (4) conversations between FEMA and other Service biologists from the Ventura, and Arcata Fish and Wildlife Offices; and (4) information contained in Service files. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (Service File No. 08ESMF00-2018-F-3331). Consultation History March 2017 - January 2018 Weekly coordination calls between the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, other Service field offices, and FEMA. March 2017 - May 2018 Correspondence exchange and meetings between the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, other Service fieldoffices, and FEMA. January 11, 2018 Received the Draft Programmatic BiologicalAssessment from FEMA. April 17, 2018 Received additional supplemental information forthe Draft Biological Assessment. May 2, 2018 Provided final comments on the Draft Programmatic Biological Assessment. June 20, 2018 Received a Programmatic Biological Assessment fromFE1v1A. Mr. Alessandro Amaglio 4 September 14, 2018 Received a letter fromFErvIA changing the effects determinations for 20 species from Likely to Adversely Affect to Adversely Affect. PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL OPINION Scope of the Consultation This document is a programmatic biological opinion for FErvIA's disaster, mitigation, and preparedness program (proposed action)·within the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office's Jurisdiction in California.This is designed to facilitate FEJ'vIA's compliance with the Act for projects of a similar nature that occur as a result of Presidentially-declared disasters, and that are likely to adversely affect 17 federally-listed species and their respective designated or proposed critical habitats within the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office's jurisdiction. It is intended to provide Section 7(a)(2) compliance to FErvIA for the proposed projects fromapplicants and sub-grantees (Subapplicants) requesting funding under FEJ'vIA's disaster, mitigation, and preparedness program in California. It does not cover emergency consultations or FErvIA's implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program. This programmatic biological opinion will cover a period
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Papilio (New Series) #24 2016 Issn 2372-9449
    PAPILIO (NEW SERIES) #24 2016 ISSN 2372-9449 MEAD’S BUTTERFLIES IN COLORADO, 1871 by James A. Scott, Ph.D. in entomology, University of California Berkeley, 1972 (e-mail: [email protected]) Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………..……….……………….p. 1 Locations of Localities Mentioned Below…………………………………..……..……….p. 7 Summary of Butterflies Collected at Mead’s Major Localities………………….…..……..p. 8 Mead’s Butterflies, Sorted by Butterfly Species…………………………………………..p. 11 Diary of Mead’s Travels and Butterflies Collected……………………………….……….p. 43 Identity of Mead’s Field Names for Butterflies he Collected……………………….…….p. 64 Discussion and Conclusions………………………………………………….……………p. 66 Acknowledgments………………………………………………………….……………...p. 67 Literature Cited……………………………………………………………….………...….p. 67 Table 1………………………………………………………………………….………..….p. 6 Table 2……………………………………………………………………………………..p. 37 Introduction Theodore L. Mead (1852-1936) visited central Colorado from June to September 1871 to collect butterflies. Considerable effort has been spent trying to determine the identities of the butterflies he collected for his future father-in-law William Henry Edwards, and where he collected them. Brown (1956) tried to deduce his itinerary based on the specimens and the few letters etc. available to him then. Brown (1964-1987) designated lectotypes and neotypes for the names of the butterflies that William Henry Edwards described, including 24 based on Mead’s specimens. Brown & Brown (1996) published many later-discovered letters written by Mead describing his travels and collections. Calhoun (2013) purchased Mead’s journal and published Mead’s brief journal descriptions of his collecting efforts and his travels by stage and horseback and walking, and Calhoun commented on some of the butterflies he collected (especially lectotypes). Calhoun (2015a) published an abbreviated summary of Mead’s travels using those improved locations from the journal etc., and detailed the type localities of some of the butterflies named from Mead specimens.
    [Show full text]
  • An Addendum to the FY 2016/2017 Gravity Sewer Improvements Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), State Clearinghouse No
    June 12, 2019 ADDENDUM TO THE FY 2016/2017 GRAVITY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION INTRODUCTION This environmental document is an addendum to the FY 2016/2017 Gravity Sewer Improvements Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), State Clearinghouse No. 2017122069, by the Ross Valley Sanitary District (the District). Amendments to the Final IS/MND1 for the project include: 1) addressing a change of construction methods, and 2) fulfilling requirements for submittal of a State Revolving Fund (SRF) application. These changes and additions to the project have necessitated further environmental review. As demonstrated in this Addendum, the IS/MND continues to serve as the appropriate document addressing the environmental impacts of these improvements pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Background The IS/MND was prepared to address construction-level impacts to the existing deficient gravity sewer mains owned by the District in two areas: the Butterfield/Meadowcroft alignment (Butterfield alignment) and the Nokomis alignment (see Figures 2 and 3 in the IS/MND). The IS/MND evaluated potential environmental effects on aesthetics, agriculture and forestry, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation,
    [Show full text]
  • State of California the Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT of FISH and GAME Biogeographic Data Branch California Natural Diversity Database
    State of California The Natural Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Biogeographic Data Branch California Natural Diversity Database STATE & FEDERALLY LISTED ENDANGERED & THREATENED ANIMALS OF CALIFORNIA January 2010 This is a list of animals found within California or off the coast of the State that have been classified as Endangered or Threatened by the California Fish & Game Commission (state list) or by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior or the U.S. Secretary of Commerce (federal list). The official California listing of Endangered and Threatened animals is contained in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 670.5. The official federal listing of Endangered and Threatened animals is published in the Federal Register, 50 CFR 17.11. The California Endangered Species Act of 1970 created the categories of “Endangered” and “Rare”. The California Endangered Species Act of 1984 created the categories of “Endangered” and “Threatened”. On January 1, 1985, all animal species designated as “Rare” were reclassified as “Threatened”. Animals that are candidates for state listing and animals proposed for federal listing are also included on this list. A state candidate species is one that the Fish and Game commission had formally noticed as being under review by the Department for addition to the State list. A federal proposed species is one for which a proposed regulation has been published in the Federal Register. Code Designation: Totals as of January 2010 SE = State-listed as Endangered 45 ST = State listed as Threatened 34 SR = State listed as Rare – old designation, all animals reclassified to Threatened on 1/1/85 0 FE = Federally listed as Endangered (21.5% of all U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Specimen Records for North American Lepidoptera (Insecta) in the Oregon State Arthropod Collection. Lycaenidae Leach, 1815 and Riodinidae Grote, 1895
    Catalog: Oregon State Arthropod Collection 2019 Vol 3(2) Specimen records for North American Lepidoptera (Insecta) in the Oregon State Arthropod Collection. Lycaenidae Leach, 1815 and Riodinidae Grote, 1895 Jon H. Shepard Paul C. Hammond Christopher J. Marshall Oregon State Arthropod Collection, Department of Integrative Biology, Oregon State University, Corvallis OR 97331 Cite this work, including the attached dataset, as: Shepard, J. S, P. C. Hammond, C. J. Marshall. 2019. Specimen records for North American Lepidoptera (Insecta) in the Oregon State Arthropod Collection. Lycaenidae Leach, 1815 and Riodinidae Grote, 1895. Catalog: Oregon State Arthropod Collection 3(2). (beta version). http://dx.doi.org/10.5399/osu/cat_osac.3.2.4594 Introduction These records were generated using funds from the LepNet project (Seltmann) - a national effort to create digital records for North American Lepidoptera. The dataset published herein contains the label data for all North American specimens of Lycaenidae and Riodinidae residing at the Oregon State Arthropod Collection as of March 2019. A beta version of these data records will be made available on the OSAC server (http://osac.oregonstate.edu/IPT) at the time of this publication. The beta version will be replaced in the near future with an official release (version 1.0), which will be archived as a supplemental file to this paper. Methods Basic digitization protocols and metadata standards can be found in (Shepard et al. 2018). Identifications were confirmed by Jon Shepard and Paul Hammond prior to digitization. Nomenclature follows that of (Pelham 2008). Results The holdings in these two families are extensive. Combined, they make up 25,743 specimens (24,598 Lycanidae and 1145 Riodinidae).
    [Show full text]
  • And Mission Blue Butterfly Populations Found at Milagra Ridge and the Mission Blue Butterfly Population at Marin Headlands Are Managed by the GGNRA
    San Bruno Elfin Butterfly (Callophrys mossii bayensis) and Mission Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo by Patrick Kobernus: Adult male mission blue butterfly. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento, California February 2010 5-YEAR REVIEW San Bruno Elfin Butterfly (Callophrys mossii bayensis) and Mission blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis) I. GENERAL INFORMATION Purpose of 5-Year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing of a species as endangered or threatened is based on the existence of threats attributable to one or more of the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and we must consider these same five factors in any subsequent consideration of reclassification or delisting of a species. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed.
    [Show full text]
  • Daniel Grossberg
    Patrick Kobernus Principal EDUCATION M.S. Ecology California State University, East Bay TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES & EXPERIENCE Patrick Kobernus is the owner of Coast Ridge Ecology, and has over 18 years of experience as a professional wildlife biologist. He currently manages a staff of six biologists and environmental specialists. He is experienced in supervising biological monitoring crews, conducting endangered species monitoring and rare plant mapping, and overseeing habitat management and restoration projects including invasive species control, grazing, controlled burning, and replanting projects. Since 2010, Mr. Kobernus has served as the Lead Biologist for the Crystal Springs /San Andreas Transmission System Upgrade Project, Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 2 Project, Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvement Project, Harry Tracy Water Treatment Long Term Improvement Project and the SFPUC Bioregional Habitat Restoration Program. Mr. Kobernus conducted extensive surveys and consulted on mitigation efforts for California red-legged frog, San Francisco garter snake, western pond turtle, steelhead, San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, nesting birds and roosting bats. Mr. Kobernus has extensive experience with rare animal and plant species in northern and central California, including San Bruno elfin butterfly, Callippe silverspot butterfly, Smith’s blue butterfly, Myrtle’s silverspot butterfly, California tiger salamander, northern spotted owl, burrowing owl, several local bat species, and several local serpentine endemic plant species. Mr. Kobernus served as the Habitat Manager for the San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan in San Mateo County for 13 years (1995-2007). He has worked extensively within the San Francisco Bay Area, conducting biological assessments and USFWS protocol surveys for protected species within San Francisco, Santa Clara, San Mateo, and San Benito Counties, and electrofishing and trapping surveys for steelhead in San Mateo, Alameda, and Santa Clara Counties.
    [Show full text]
  • Profile for San Bruno Elfin, Callophrys Mossii Bayensis
    Black, S. H., and D. M. Vaughan. 2005. Species Profile: Callophrys mossii bayensis. In Shepherd, M. D., D. M. Vaughan, and S. H. Black (Eds). Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. CD-ROM Version 1 (May 2005). Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. ________________________________________________________________________ Callophrys mossii bayensis (R. M. Brown), 1969 San Bruno Elfin (Lycaenidae: Theclinae: Eumaeini) Photo by Larry Orsak. Please contact the Xerces Society for permission to use. ________________________________________________________________________ Profile prepared by Scott Hoffman Black and Mace Vaughan The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation ________________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY The San Bruno Elfin inhabits rocky outcrops and cliffs in coastal scrub on the San Francisco peninsula. The San Bruno Elfin is restricted to a few small populations, the largest of which occurs on San Bruno Mountain. Its habitat has been diminished by quarrying, off-road recreation, and urban development. Development pressures on the San Francisco peninsula continue to grow, and the major threats to the butterfly— increased urbanization in the area, and loss of habitat by road construction and rock and sand quarrying—reflect this. Grazing may have encouraged the growth of exotic plants in the area. In the early 1980s, a habitat conservation plan was developed to allow development on San Bruno Mountain while minimizing the adverse effects on the San Bruno Elfin
    [Show full text]
  • San Bruno Mountain Habitat Conservation Plan
    SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN YEAR 2008 ACTIVITIES REPORT FOR SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES Endangered Species Permit PRT-2-9818 Prepared By: TRA Environmental Sciences For: The County of San Mateo January 2009 SBM HCP-- 2008 Activities Report for Covered Species TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................... ii SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................................1 I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................3 II. STATUS OF SPECIES OF CONCERN ................................................................................3 A. Mission Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis) ................................................3 B. Callippe Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria callippe callippe)................................................4 C. San Bruno Elfin (Callophrys mossii bayensis)..................................................................8 D. Bay Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis)..............................................11 E. San Francisco Garter Snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia).......................................12 F. California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii)......................................................12 G. Plants of Concern.............................................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • Inventories of Butterflies 2009
    2009 Report Inventories of Butterflies in Boulder County By Janet Chu November 7, 2009 Table of Contents I. Acknowledgments …………………… 3 II. Abstract …………………………… 4 II. Introduction……………………………… 4 IV. Objectives ………………………….. 5 V. Research Methods ………………….. 6 VI. Results and Discussion ………………... 6 A. Boulder County Open Spaces ... 7 B. City of Boulder Properties …. 9 VII. Conclusions …………………………….. 13 VIII. Recommendations …………………….. 13 IX. References …………………………. 14 X. Butterfly Survey Data Tables …………. 15 Table I. Survey Dates and Locations ……………. 15 Sites belonging to Boulder County … 15 Table II. Southeast Buffer …………………. 16 Table III. Anne U. White Trail ………………. 18 Table IV. Heil Valley Open Space –Geer Watershed... 21 Table V. Heil Valley Open Space –Plumely Canyon 24 Table VI. Heil Valley Open Space – North ………… 27 Table VII. Walker Ranch - Meyer‟s Gulch ………… 30 Table VIII. Caribou Ranch Open Space ………………33 Sites belonging to City of Boulder …… 36 Table IX. Left Hand Valley Reservoir …………… 36 Table X. Hoover Hill, Westview Road ……………. 37 Table XI. Marshall Mesa …………………….…… 38 2 I. Acknowledgments Our research team has conducted butterfly surveys for eight consecutive years, from 2002 through 2009, with 2002-2004 being introductory to the lands and species, and 2005-2009 more in depth. Larry Crowley, Jean Morgan, and Amy Chu have been valuable team members, joined at times by the author‟s grandsons Asa and Jeremy Hurst and associates Mike Sportiello and Cathy Cook. Ruth Carol Cushman and Joyce Gellhorn added expertise on plant life. The majority of the surveys have been in Boulder County Parks and Open Space (BCPOS) lands. Therese Glowacki issued a Special Collection Permit for access into the Open Spaces; Mark Brennan oversaw research, maintained records of our monographs and organized seminars for presentation of data.
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 SBM Covered Species Report Draft
    SAN BRUNO MOUNTAIN HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN YEAR 2009 ACTIVITIES REPORT FOR COVERED SPECIES Endangered Species Permit PRT-2-9818 Prepared By: TRA Environmental Sciences 545 Middlefield Road, Suite 200 Menlo Park, CA 94025 For: County of San Mateo 555 County Center, 4th Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 December 2009 SBM HCP-- 2009 Activities Report for Covered Species TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY .........................................................................................................................................................................ii SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................................................................1 I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................3 II. STATUS OF SPECIES OF CONCERN.......................................................................................................3 A. Mission Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis) ...............................................................................3 B. Callippe Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria callippe callippe)..............................................................................9 C. San Bruno Elfin (Callophrys mossii bayensis).............................................................................................. 10 D. Bay Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis)........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Notice of Intent to Sue for Violations of the Endangered Species Act Concerning Registration of Pesticide Products Containing Malathion
    March 20, 2018 Sent via Email and Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested Scott Pruitt, Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Mail Code: 1101A Washington, DC 20460 [email protected] Ryan Zinke, Secretary of the Interior Greg Sheehan, Acting Director U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1849 C Street, NW 1849 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20240 Washington, DC 20240 [email protected] [email protected] Wilbur L. Ross, Secretary of Commerce Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA Fisheries 1401 Constitution Ave., NW 1315 East-West Highway Washington, DC 20230 Silver Spring, MD 20910 [email protected] [email protected] Re: Notice of Intent to Sue for Violations of the Endangered Species Act Concerning Registration of Pesticide Products Containing Malathion Dear Administrator Pruitt and Secretary Zinke: On behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Environmental Health, and Californians for Pesticide Reform (collectively, “Center”), this letter provides notice of intent to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) for violations of Sections 7 and 9 of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C § 1536, 1538 and the ESA Interagency Cooperation Regulations, 50 C.F.R. Part 402. This notice is provided pursuant to Section 11(g) of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g). Specifically, EPA is in violation of ESA Section 7(a)(2), 16 U.S.C. § 1536(a)(2), Section 7(d), 16 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 1919-Biological Resources Assessment
    Biological Resources Assessment 94 Via Navarro Greenbrae, Marin County May 2019 Prepared for: Angelique Riordan 121 Oak Avenue San Anselmo, CA 94960 Prepared by: Prunuske Chatham, Inc. 400 Morris Street, Suite G Sebastopol, CA 95472 Copyright © 2019 by Prunuske Chatham, Inc. All rights reserved. Table of Contents Page 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 2. Setting ........................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 1. Project Location ................................................................................................... 4 3. Methods ........................................................................................................................ 5 4. Soils ............................................................................................................................... 7 5. Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 7 6. Special-status Species ................................................................................................... 9 Definition of Special-status Species ......................................................................... 9 Special-status Species Evaluation Criteria ................................................................ 9 Jurisdictional Areas ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]