DOCSLIB.ORG

Department of the Interior

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Vol. 76 Monday, No. 157 August 15, 2011 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for Southwestern Willow Flycatcher; Proposed Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:06 Aug 12, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\15AUP2.SGM 15AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 50542 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail we are proposing, including managing or hand-delivery to: Public Comments for the potential effects of climate Fish and Wildlife Service Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–ES–2011– change; 053; Division of Policy and Directives (e) Stream segments, many of which 50 CFR Part 17 Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife are highlighted in the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2011–0053; MO Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 92210–0–0009] 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203. (Recovery Plan) (Service 2002) and We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We included in this proposed rule, that are RIN 1018–AX43 will post all comments on http:// not now known to have flycatcher www.regulations.gov. This generally nesting territories or known to only Endangered and Threatened Wildlife means that we will post any personal have few nesting flycatchers that may be and Plants; Designation of Revised information you provide us (see the capable of being improved for flycatcher Critical Habitat for Southwestern Public Comments section below for recovery purposes. We specifically seek Willow Flycatcher more information). information about streams within the AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amargosa, Salton, Mohave, Powell, San Interior. Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor, U.S. Juan, Santa Cruz, and Hassayampa and Agua Fria Management Units. Please ACTION: Proposed rule. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Ecological Services Office, 2321 West provide information on flycatcher SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Royal Palm Rd., Suite 103, Phoenix, AZ distribution and abundance, habitat Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 85021; telephone 602–242–0210; quality, habitat locations, habitat improvement projects, management revise critical habitat for the facsimile 602–242–2513. If you use a actions needed to improve habitat, southwestern willow flycatcher telecommunications device for the deaf habitat quality limitations, habitat (Empidonax traillii extimus) (flycatcher) (TDD), call the Federal Information recovery potential, and any other under the Endangered Species Act of Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 1973, as amended (Act). In total, flycatcher or flycatcher-habitat-specific SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: approximately 3,364 km stream information, and; kilometers (2,090 stream miles) are Public Comments (f) Flycatcher habitat suitability in specific areas within the Santa Ana and being proposed for designation as We intend that any final action critical habitat. These areas are being San Diego Management Units in resulting from this proposed rule will be southern California. Please provide proposed as stream segments, with the based on the best scientific and lateral extent including the riparian information on flycatcher habitat commercial data available and be as suitability for recovery at the following areas and streams that occur within the accurate and as effective as possible. 100-year floodplain or flood-prone areas: (1) Entirety of Temescal Wash Therefore, we request comments or including Alberhill Creek in Riverside areas. The proposed critical habitat is information from other concerned located on a combination of Federal, County; (2) entirety of Murrieta Creek in government agencies, the scientific Riverside County; (3) Potrero Creek near State, Tribal, and private lands in community, industry, or any other Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, the city of Beaumont in Riverside interested party concerning this County; (4) Cajon Creek from Lone Pine Mono, Orange, Riverside, Santa Barbara, proposed rule. We particularly seek San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura Canyon to California State Highway 138 comments concerning: in San Bernardino County; and (5) Counties in California; Clark, Lincoln, (1) The reasons why we should or and Nye Counties in southern Nevada; Tijuana River from Dairy Mart Road to should not designate habitat as ‘‘critical the Tijuana River Estuary in San Diego Kane, San Juan, and Washington habitat’’ under section 4 of the Act (16 Counties in southern Utah; Alamosa, County. U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including whether (3) Land use designations and current Conejos, Costilla, La Plata, and Rio there are threats to the species from or planned activities in the subject areas Grande Counties in southern Colorado; human activity, the degree of which can and their possible impacts on proposed Apache, Cochise, Gila, Graham, be expected to increase due to the critical habitat. Greenlee, La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave, designation, and whether that increase (4) Information on the projected and Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Yavapai, and in threat outweighs the benefit of reasonably likely impacts of climate Yuma Counties in Arizona; and Catron, designation such that the designation of change on the flycatcher, the features Cibola, Dona Ana, Grant, Hidalgo, critical habitat may not be prudent. essential to its conservation and the McKinley, Mora, Rio Arriba, Santa Fe, (2) Specific information on: areas proposed as critical habitat. San Juan, Sierra, Soccoro, Taos, and (a) The amount and distribution of (5) Any probable economic, national Valencia Counties in New Mexico. southwestern willow flycatcher habitat; security, environmental, cultural, or DATES: We will accept comments (b) What areas that were occupied at other relevant impacts of designating received or postmarked on or before the time of listing that contain features any area that may be included in the October 14, 2011. We must receive essential to the conservation of the final designation; in particular, any requests for public hearings, in writing, species should be included in the impacts on small entities, and the at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER designation and why; benefits of including or excluding areas INFORMATION CONTACT section by (c) What areas not occupied at the that exhibit these impacts. September 29, 2011. time of listing that meet our criteria for (6) Whether any specific areas we are ADDRESSES: You may submit comments being essential to the conservation of proposing for critical habitat by one of the following methods: the species should be included in the designation should be considered for (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal designation and why; exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the eRulemaking Portal: http:// (d) Special management Act, and whether the benefits of www.regulations.gov. In the Enter considerations or protection that may be potentially excluding any specific area Keyword or ID box, enter Docket No. needed for the physical or biological outweigh the benefits of including that FWS–R2–ES–2011–0053, which is the features essential to the conservation of area under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in docket number for this rulemaking. the species in the critical habitat areas particular. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:06 Aug 12, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15AUP2.SGM 15AUP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 50543 (a) For specific lands that we should withhold personal information such as South America (Ridgely and Gwynne consider for exclusion under section your street address, phone number, or 1989, p. 303; Stiles and Skutch 1989, 4(b)(2) of the Act, please provide us e-mail address from public review; pp. 321–322; Howell and Webb 1995, management plans, conservation however, we cannot guarantee that we pp. 496–497; Unitt 1997, pp. 70–73; easements, agreements, Habitat will be able to do so. Koronkiewicz et al. 1998, p. 12; Unitt Conservation Plans (HCP), or other Comments and materials we receive, 1999, p. 14). appropriate information, which describe as well as supporting documentation we All willow flycatcher subspecies the commitment and assurances of used in preparing this proposed rule, spend time migrating and breeding in protection of the physical or biological will be available for public inspection the United States from April to features of flycatcher critical habitat; on http://www.regulations.gov, or by September. Use of riparian habitats property boundaries; flycatcher status, appointment, during normal business along major drainages in the Southwest distribution, and abundance; and hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife during migration has been documented management actions to protect the Service, Arizona Ecological Services (Sogge et al. 1997, pp. 3–4; Yong and physical or biological features of Office in Phoenix, Arizona (see FOR Finch 1997, p. 253; Johnson and O’Brien flycatcher habitat. FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 1998, p. 2; McKernan and Braden 1999, (b) For lands we evaluated and p. 17; Koronkiewicz et al. 2004, pp. 9– Background excluded from critical habitat under 11). Many of the willow flycatchers section 4(b)(2) of the Act during the It is our intent to include only those found migrating are detected in riparian 2005 flycatcher critical habitat topics directly relevant to the habitats or patches (small areas
Recommended publications
  • California Fire Siege 2007 an Overview Cover Photos from Top Clockwise: the Santiago Fire Threatens a Development on October 23, 2007

    California Fire Siege 2007 an Overview Cover Photos from Top Clockwise: the Santiago Fire Threatens a Development on October 23, 2007

    CALIFORNIA FIRE SIEGE 2007 AN OVERVIEW Cover photos from top clockwise: The Santiago Fire threatens a development on October 23, 2007. (Photo credit: Scott Vickers, istockphoto) Image of Harris Fire taken from Ikhana unmanned aircraft on October 24, 2007. (Photo credit: NASA/U.S. Forest Service) A firefighter tries in vain to cool the flames of a wind-whipped blaze. (Photo credit: Dan Elliot) The American Red Cross acted quickly to establish evacuation centers during the siege. (Photo credit: American Red Cross) Opposite Page: Painting of Harris Fire by Kate Dore, based on photo by Wes Schultz. 2 Introductory Statement In October of 2007, a series of large wildfires ignited and burned hundreds of thousands of acres in Southern California. The fires displaced nearly one million residents, destroyed thousands of homes, and sadly took the lives of 10 people. Shortly after the fire siege began, a team was commissioned by CAL FIRE, the U.S. Forest Service and OES to gather data and measure the response from the numerous fire agencies involved. This report is the result of the team’s efforts and is based upon the best available information and all known facts that have been accumulated. In addition to outlining the fire conditions leading up to the 2007 siege, this report presents statistics —including availability of firefighting resources, acreage engaged, and weather conditions—alongside the strategies that were employed by fire commanders to create a complete day-by-day account of the firefighting effort. The ability to protect the lives, property, and natural resources of the residents of California is contingent upon the strength of cooperation and coordination among federal, state and local firefighting agencies.
  • California Golden Trout Chances for Survival: Poor 2 Oncorhynchus Mykiss Aguabonita

    California Golden Trout Chances for Survival: Poor 2 Oncorhynchus Mykiss Aguabonita

    California Golden Trout chances for survival: poor 2 Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita alifornia golden trout, the official state fish, is one of three species disTriBuTion: California golden trout are endemic to imple mented. major efforts have been made to create refugia 1 2 3 4 5 TROUT south Fork Kern river and to Golden trout Creek. they for golden trout in the upper reaches of the south Fork Kern of brilliantly colored trout native to the upper Kern river basin; the have been introduced into many other lakes and creeks in river by constructing barriers and then applying the poison others are the little Kern golden trout and Kern river rainbow trout. and outside of California, including the Cottonwood lakes rotenone to kill all unwanted fish above barriers. Despite California Golden Trout Were not far from the headwaters of Golden trout Creek and into these and other efforts, most populations of California golden Historically Present in South Fork Kern C Basin, Part Of The Upper Kern River California golden trout evolved in streams of the southern sierra Nevada the headwaters of south Fork Kern river, such as mulkey trout are hybridized and are under continual threat from Basin Shown Here Creek. the Cottonwood lakes have been a source of golden brown trout invasions. management actions are needed to mountains, at elevations above 7,500 feet. the Kern plateau is broad and flat, trout eggs for stocking other waters and are still used for address threats to California golden trout which include with wide meadows and meandering streams. the streams are small, shallow, stocking lakes in Fresno and tulare Counties.
  • Final Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax Traillii Extimus)

    Final Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax Traillii Extimus)

    Final Recovery Plan Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) August 2002 Prepared By Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team Technical Subgroup For Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 Approved: Date: Disclaimer Recovery Plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved Recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Some of the techniques outlined for recovery efforts in this plan are completely new regarding this subspecies. Therefore, the cost and time estimates are approximations. Citations This document should be cited as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. i-ix + 210 pp., Appendices A-O Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Service Reference Service 5430 Governor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 301/492-6403 or 1-800-582-3421 i This Recovery Plan was prepared by the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team, Technical Subgroup: Deborah M.
  • Restoration of the California Golden Trout in the South Fork Kern River, Kern Plateau, Tulare County, California, 1966-2004, with Reference to Golden Trout Creek

    Restoration of the California Golden Trout in the South Fork Kern River, Kern Plateau, Tulare County, California, 1966-2004, with Reference to Golden Trout Creek

    State of California The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME RESTORATION OF THE CALIFORNIA GOLDEN TROUT IN THE SOUTH FORK KERN RIVER, KERN PLATEAU, TULARE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 1966-2004, WITH REFERENCE TO GOLDEN TROUT CREEK By E. P. (Phil) Pister, Inland Deserts Region, Retired CALIFORNIA GOLDEN TROUT Central Region Administrative Report No. 2008-1 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... 1 BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................. 2 The Beginning..................................................................................................... 2 EARLY WARNINGS ....................................................................................................... 5 THE PLAN ...................................................................................................................... 6 WATERSHED RESTORATION ...................................................................................... 8 THE FIRST FISH BARRIER AND EARLY BROWN TROUT CONTROL....................... 8 1976 – THE MAJOR PROJECT BEGINS..................................................................... 10 TEMPLETON AND SCHAEFFER BARRIERS............................................................. 12 1977 -1979 – HOLDING THE LINE .............................................................................. 16 1980 -1983 – MAJOR CHEMICAL TREATMENTS AND BEGINNING
  • ''''''''State of California-The Resources Agency

    ''''''''State of California-The Resources Agency

    ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY GRAY DAVIS, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD 1807 13TH STREET, SUITE 103 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 (916) 445-8448 FAX (916) 323-0280 The Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD Minutes February 23, 2001 ITEM NO. PAGE 1. Roll Call ...............................................................................................................................1 2. Funding Status–Informational ....................................................................................................2 3. Special Project Planning Account–Informational ................................................................4 4. PROPOSED CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 5 - 18) ........................................................5 *5. Approval of Minutes – November 2, 2000 Meeting ............................................................5 *6. Recovery of Funds ...............................................................................................................5 *7. Wetland Habitat Restoration, Eel River Wildlife Area, Humboldt County *8. Wetland Habitat Restoration, Upper Butte Basin Wildlife Area, Little Dry Creek Unit, Butte County *9. Lake Redding Fishing Access Amendment, Shasta County *10. Wetland Habitat Restoration, East Grasslands (Castle Land and Cattle) Phase 3, Merced County *11. Fields Landing Public Access Amendment, Humboldt County *12. Belden’s Landing Public Access, Phase III, Solano County *13. Wildwood Native Park Public
  • A.5 A.5.1 Legal and Other Status A.5.2 Species Distribution and Status

    A.5 A.5.1 Legal and Other Status A.5.2 Species Distribution and Status

    Covered Species Accounts – Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Appendix A A.5 WESTERN YELLOW-BILLED CUCKOO (COCCYZUS AMERICANUS OCCIDENTALIS) A.5.1 Legal and Other Status The western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act and as an endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act. A.5.2 Species Distribution and Status A.5.2.1 Range and Status Currently, there are two recognized subspecies of yellow-billed cuckoo. Coccyzus americanus occidentalis is found west of the Rocky Mountains, and Coccyzus americanus americanus is found in deciduous forests east of the Rocky Mountains. The ongoing debate over the taxonomic separation of the two subspecies is based primarily on morphological and plumage differences (Banks 1988, Franzreb and Laymon 1993), and more recently on genetics studies initiated by the USFWS during the status review for federal listing. Historically, the range of western yellow-billed cuckoo extended from southern British Columbia in the north to the Rio Grande River in northern Mexico in the south, and east to the Rocky Mountains (Bent 1940). Currently, the only known populations of breeding western yellow-billed cuckoo are located in several disjunct locations in California, Arizona, and western New Mexico (Halterman 1991). Yellow- billed cuckoos winter in South America from Venezuela to Argentina after an August to October southern migration period (Laymon and Halterman 1985). Yellow-billed cuckoos migrate north in late June and early July (DeSchauensee 1970). Studies conducted since the 1970s indicate there may be fewer than 50 breeding pairs in California (Gaines 1977, Laymon and Halterman 1987, Halterman 1991, Laymon et al.
  • Santa Margarita River Watershed Annual Watermaster Report for the 2013-14 Water Year

    Santa Margarita River Watershed Annual Watermaster Report for the 2013-14 Water Year

    SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHED ANNUAL WATERMASTER REPORT WATER YEAR 2013-14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. FALLBROOK PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT, ET AL. CIVIL NO. 51-CV-1247-GPC-RBB CHARLES W. BINDER WATERMASTER P. 0. BOX 631 FALLBROOK, CA 92088 (760) 728-1028 FAX (760) 728-1990 August 2015 WATERMASTER SANTA MARGARITA RIVER WATERSHED TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. SECTION 1 - SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 1 SECTION 2 - INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 5 2.1 Background ......................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Authority .............................................................................................................. 5 2.3 Scope .................................................................................................................. 5 SECTION 3 - SURFACE WATER AVAILABILITY AND USE ......................................... 7 3.1 Surface Flow ........................................................................................................ 7 3.2 Surface Water Diversions .................................................................................. 13 3.3 Water Storage ................................................................................................... 13 SECTION 4- SUBSURFACE WATER AVAILABILITY ................................................. 19 4.1 General .............................................................................................................
  • Kern Storm Water Resource Plan

    Kern Storm Water Resource Plan

    Kern Storm Water Resource Plan Kern County, California DRAFT – October 2016 Prepared by: Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group 1800 30th Street, Suite 280, Bakersfield, California 93301 COPYRIGHT 2016 by PROVOST & PRITCHARD CONSULTING GROUP ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group expressly reserves its common law copyright and other applicable property rights to this document. This document is not to be reproduced, changed, or copied in any form or manner whatsoever, nor are they to be assigned to a third party without first obtaining the written permission and consent of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group In the event of unauthorized reuse of the information contained herein by a third party, the third party shall hold the firm of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group harmless, and shall bear the cost of Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group's legal fees associated with defending and enforcing these rights. Report Prepared by: Provost & Pritchard Consulting Group Jeff Eklund, PE Len Marino, PE Mike Day, PE Gretchen Heisdorf, PE Hilary Reinhard, PE Trilby Barton Cheryl Hunter Contact: Jeff Eklund, PE, Principal Engineer/Vice President Telephone: (661) 616-5900 G:\Buena Vista WSD-1048\104816001-Kern Storm Water Resource Plan\_DOCS\Reports\1012-2016 Kern SWRP Consolidated Draft.docx Kern Storm Water Resource Plan Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................
  • Assessing Willow Flycatcher Population Size and Distribution to Inform Meadow Restoration Priorities in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascades

    Assessing Willow Flycatcher Population Size and Distribution to Inform Meadow Restoration Priorities in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascades

    Produced by The Institute for Bird Populations’ Sierra Nevada Bird Observatory ASSESSING WILLOW FLYCATCHER POPULATION SIZE AND DISTRIBUTION TO INFORM MEADOW RESTORATION PRIORITIES IN THE SIERRA NEVADA AND SOUTHERN CASCADES September 25, 2014 Helen Loffland and Rodney Siegel Chris Stermer The Institute for Bird Populations Staff Environmental Scientist P.O. Box 1346 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Point Reyes Station, CA 94956 1812 Ninth Street www.birdpop.org Sacramento, CA 95811 Ryan Burnett and Brent Campos Tina Mark Point Blue Conservation Science Wildlife, Aquatics, Rare Plant Program Manager P.O. Box 634 Tahoe National Forest Chester, CA 96020 631 Coyote Street www.pointblue.org Nevada City, CA 95959 Above: Willow Flycatcher (inset) and breeding habitat at Red Lake Peak, Alpine County. The Institute for Bird Populations Willow Flycatcher Population Status in the Sierra Nevada Recommended citation: Loffland, H. L., R. B. Siegel, R. D. Burnett, B. R. Campos, T. Mark, C. Stermer 2014. Assessing Willow Flycatcher population size and distribution to inform meadow restoration in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascades. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, California. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank countless agencies and individuals for conducting recent and historic Willow Flycatcher surveys and sharing data for this synthesis. This project was made possible by a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and was conducted by The Institute for Bird Populations’ Sierra Nevada Bird Observatory. This is Contribution No. 483 of The Institute for Bird Populations. i The Institute for Bird Populations Willow Flycatcher Population Status in the Sierra Nevada Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................
  • County of Riverside General Plan Elsinore Area Plan

    County of Riverside General Plan Elsinore Area Plan

    County of Riverside General Plan Elsinore Area Plan COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Transportation and Land Management Agency 4080 Lemon Street, 12th Floor Riverside, CA 92501-3634 Phone: (951) 955-3200, Fax: (951) 955-1811 October 2011 County of Riverside General Plan Elsinore Area Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Vision Summary.......................................................................................................................................................... iv Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 A Special Note on Implementing the Vision ........................................................................................................ 1 Location ........................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Features ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Setting ....................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Unique Features ........................................................................................................................................................ 7 Cleveland National Forest ...................................................................................................................................
  • San Mateo County

    San Mateo County

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

    4 Tribal Nations of San Diego County This Chapter Presents an Overall Summary of the Tribal Nations of San Diego County and the Water Resources on Their Reservations

    4 Tribal Nations of San Diego County This chapter presents an overall summary of the Tribal Nations of San Diego County and the water resources on their reservations. A brief description of each Tribe, along with a summary of available information on each Tribe’s water resources, is provided. The water management issues provided by the Tribe’s representatives at the San Diego IRWM outreach meetings are also presented. 4.1 Reservations San Diego County features the largest number of Tribes and Reservations of any county in the United States. There are 18 federally-recognized Tribal Nation Reservations and 17 Tribal Governments, because the Barona and Viejas Bands share joint-trust and administrative responsibility for the Capitan Grande Reservation. All of the Tribes within the San Diego IRWM Region are also recognized as California Native American Tribes. These Reservation lands, which are governed by Tribal Nations, total approximately 127,000 acres or 198 square miles. The locations of the Tribal Reservations are presented in Figure 4-1 and summarized in Table 4-1. Two additional Tribal Governments do not have federally recognized lands: 1) the San Luis Rey Band of Luiseño Indians (though the Band remains active in the San Diego region) and 2) the Mount Laguna Band of Luiseño Indians. Note that there may appear to be inconsistencies related to population sizes of tribes in Table 4-1. This is because not all Tribes may choose to participate in population surveys, or may identify with multiple heritages. 4.2 Cultural Groups Native Americans within the San Diego IRWM Region generally comprise four distinct cultural groups (Kumeyaay/Diegueno, Luiseño, Cahuilla, and Cupeño), which are from two distinct language families (Uto-Aztecan and Yuman-Cochimi).