DOCSLIB.ORG

Iv. Environmental Impact Analysis D. Biological Resources

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Iv. Environmental Impact Analysis D. Biological Resources IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES INTRODUCTION The Sea Glass Project Site is located at 6719 S. Pacific Avenue in Playa del Rey, immediately adjacent to and east of Dockweiler State Beach and less than ½ mile south of Ballona Creek. The site is bounded to the north and south by existing residential development (aside from a groomed portion of beach sand immediately adjacent on the north side, beyond which is an apartment complex), and is bounded to the east by Pacific Avenue with the Del Rey Lagoon and a city park with a ballfield beyond. The Project Site currently consists of undeveloped partially-vegetated sandy terrain (on the eastern half) and groomed beach sand (on the western half), and portions of the site were once occupied by commercial and/or residential structures. The eastern half of the property which supports limited coastal strand habitat is currently fenced to prevent public access. Historic photographs, Sanborn fire maps, and building permits indicate a majority of the western portion of the site (the Pacific Avenue frontage) was developed with residences between the 1940s and the late 1960s, with a few structures remaining until the 1980s – the foundations of some of these residences remain on the site today. Methods Several biological site studies were conducted on-site for the proposed project, involving three biological consulting firms and independent peer reviews by other knowledgeable individuals. These biological survey and review methods are summarized below. 2004 In 2004, Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) conducted a search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)1 to help identify those special status plants and animals that may be in the project vicinity. Additional resources utilized to characterize the site included U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps2, available aerial photography3, and discussion with regulatory personnel (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] and California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG]). A field reconnaissance of the project area was conducted by Rincon on April 8, 2004 for identification of any onsite habitats, special-status biological resources, natural communities of special concern, drainages, wildlife corridors or other potential biological resources onsite. If seen, such resources were noted; otherwise potential habitat for special status species was identified based on a suitability analysis. 1 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2003 and 2004. California Natural Diversity Database. Search for occurrence records conducted in December 2003 and June 2004. 2 National Geographic. 2001. 3 USGS. TerraServer (http://terraserver.microsoft.com) Sea Glass Townhome Project IV.D. Biological Resources Screencheck Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-1 City of Los Angeles October 2006 2005 Additional surveys were conducted in 2005 to identify special status bird, arthropod and plant resources, based on recommendations resulting from the April 8, 2004 field reconnaissance. Rincon conducted a 100% walkover of the site on May 10, 2005 to inventory the biological resources present and identify potential special status resources; the survey primarily focused on searching for one special status plant species (Orcutt’s pincushion [Chaenactis glabriuscula var. orcuttiana]), and two federally listed bird species (western snowy plover [Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus], and California least tern [Sterna antillarumm browni])4. On May 12, 2005, Frank Hovore and Associates (FH&A) conducted focused surveys for special status arthropods, which included documentation of weather and site conditions; visual searches for arthropods on flowers, vegetation, and on the sand surface; inspection of fine debris collected in swales and beneath shelter; shaking off vegetation over a clean substrate; and sifting sand. Four sifted sand samples were collected from under each dominant plant species present on-site (silver beach bursage [Ambrosia chamissonis], beach evening primrose [Camissonia cheiranthifolia], sea rocket [Cakile maritime], and iceplant [Carpobrotus edulis]); one sample was collected beneath pink sand verbena (Abronia umbellata), and three samples were collected (one on the north property area and two on the south property area) beneath ruderal species including brome (Bromus sp.). 2006 In March 2006, the results of the above studies conducted in 2004 and 2005 were independently reviewed at the request of the City of Los Angeles. Dr. Rudi Mattoni of the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) noted that the surveys and results were adequate, but raised an issue regarding a rare plant species that was not identified in the reports – Lewis’ evening primrose (Camissonia lewisii), which Dr. Mattoni has observed in the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and Ballona areas. Dr. Mattoni has not formally surveyed the site, but believes he has previously observed Lewis’ evening primrose on the site. Christine Medak at the USFWS concurred with the results that no listed plants or animals were found during surveys and that the listed El Segundo blue butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni), the Pacific pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris pacificus), and the western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) are unlikely to occur on-site. Ms. Medak did note that the site has the potential to be used by other nesting birds, including the endangered California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni), and that measures should be implemented to avoid impacts to nesting birds (such as avoiding construction during the bird breeding season); however, if the California least tern is ever found to be nesting on-site, USFWS should be consulted at that time. CDFG also submitted comments on the Notice of Preparation (letter dated August 24, 2006). This letter referenced an on-site meeting with CDFG and the City which occurred on June 19, 2006. The letter also referenced that CDFG had received and reviewed the biological assessment report prepared by Rincon dated March 24, 2004 and the summary of special status species dated June 21, 2005. In their comment letter, CDFG requested that the EIR contain specific information, including analyses of project-related 4 Scientific names for plant or animal species are only given for the first occurrence in this document; subsequent occurrences of each species will only be identified by common name. Sea Glass Townhome Project IV.D. Biological Resources Screencheck Draft Environmental Impact Report Page IV.D-2 City of Los Angeles October 2006 impacts to sensitive species known to occur on or in the vicinity of the site, and measures to avoid, minimize, and offset impacts to biological resources. Specific sensitive biological resources mentioned include beach morning glory (Calystegia soldanella), sand verbena (Abronia maritima), Dorothy’s El Segundo dune weevil (Trigonoscuta dorthea), silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra), and Southern foredune habitat. CDFG specifically recommended on- or off-site mitigation for impacts to Southern foredune habitat at a 5:1 ratio. In May 2006, CAJA biological staff also conducted a peer review of the 2004 and 2005 study reports, as well as the independent peer reviews and other environmental analysis documents from the vicinity, including the LAX Master Plan EIR/EIS. Based on this review, additional survey recommendations were made to Dudek Engineering and Environmental (Dudek) for their additional on-site surveys. Dudek conducted a peer review of the two Rincon reports described above. Sensitive biological resources present or potentially present onsite were identified through a search using CDFG’s CNDDB and the California Native Plant Society’s online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants5. Dudek biologists also conducted two site visits on May 26 and 31, 2006 to conduct additional focused surveys and habitat assessments for special status plant and wildlife species. The peer review determined that the previous reports were complete and thorough. The site surveys concluded that one special status plant species, red sand-verbena (Abronia maritima, a CNPS List 4.2 species) was present on-site at three separate locations, and that no other special status plants had the potential to occur on-site. The site surveys also concluded that no sensitive wildlife species were observed on-site, including the California least tern. Additionally, Dudek noted that there is a moderate potential for the silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra, a State Species of Special Concern) to occur on-site due to the sandy soil conditions and observations of this species in similar situations, but a focused survey did not reveal the presence of any silvery legless lizards on the site. In sum, Dudek’s report identified only one issue for further analysis: the potential CEQA significance of impacts to Dorothy’s El Segundo dune weevil (discussed below). Applicable Regulatory Requirements Federal Federal Endangered Species Act The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) defines an endangered species as “any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Threatened species are defined as “any species which is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future throughout all or significant portions of its range.” The Sacramento, California United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Field Office describes Federal Species of Concern (FSC) as “a sensitive species that has not been listed, proposed
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Beach Bluffs Restoration Project Master Plan
    Beach Bluffs Restoration Project Master Plan April 2005 Beach Bluffs Restoration Project Steering Committee Ann Dalkey and Travis Longcore, Co-Chairs Editor’s Note This document includes text prepared by several authors. Julie Stephenson and Dr. Antony Orme completed research and text on geomorphology (Appendix A). Dr. Ronald Davidson researched and reported South Bay history (Appendix B). Sarah Casia and Leann Ortmann completed biological fieldwork, supervised by Dr. Rudi Mattoni. All photographs © Travis Longcore. GreenInfo Network prepared maps under the direction of Aubrey Dugger (http://www.greeninfo.org). You may download a copy of this plan from: http://www.urbanwildlands.org/bbrp.html This plan was prepared with funding from California Proposition 12, administered by the California Coastal Conservancy and the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission through a grant to the Los Angeles Conservation Corps and The Urban Wildlands Group. Significant additional funding was provided by a grant from the City of Redondo Beach. Preferred Citation Longcore, T. (ed.). 2005. Beach Bluffs Restoration Project Master Plan. Beach Bluffs Restoration Project Steering Committee, Redondo Beach, California. 2 Beach Bluffs Restoration Project Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... iii Introduction .........................................................................................................................5 Goals.....................................................................................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 El Segundo Blue Butterfly Memo
    MEMORANDUM To: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Field Office (Ms. Susie Tharratt, Recovery Permit Coordinator) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ventura Field Office (Mr. Chris Kofron, Senior Biologist and Recovery Permit Coordinator) From: Psomas (Irena Mendez, PhD) Date: November 21, 2013 Subject: Results of 2013 Presence/Absence Surveys for El Segundo Blue Butterfly at the Ballona Wetlands Ecological Reserve, Playa Del Rey, Los Angeles County, CA Attachments: 1. Floral and Faunal Compendium 2. Field Notes 3. Video Clip of Site (Provided in Electronic Format Only In lieu of 35 mm Slides) Executive Summary This memorandum is being transmitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in compliance with survey and associated reporting requirements specified in USFWS Recovery Permit TE218630 (Recovery Permit) issued to Irena Mendez. • The El Segundo Blue butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni) (ESB) was determined to be present at the Ballona Wetlands Ecological Preserve as a result of presence/absence surveys conducted on June 27, 2013. • Surveys were conducted during the 2013 flight season by for the purposes of enhancing its survival in the wild, thus recommendations are proposed in support of on-going habitat restoration efforts. • Surveys were conducted between June 27 and August 27, 2013 on a weekly basis (with two exceptions—due to scheduling conflicts, weekly surveys were missed in the weeks of July 14th and August 18th) pursuant to the survey method described in Section 5 (b) of the USFWS recovery permit. A total of 199 butterflies were observed as a result of presence/absence surveys along an established survey route.
    [Show full text]
  • LAX Master Plan Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)
    LAX MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) 2017 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT PUBLISHED JUNE 2018 LOS ANGELES INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (LAX) MASTER PLAN PROGRAM MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) 2017 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT Prepared by Los Angeles World of Airports Environmental Programs Group Table of Contents 1 Project Background ........................................................................................................ 1-1 2 Non-Project Specific Mitigation Measures for Reporting Period ...................................... 2-1 3 Bradley West Project Mitigation Measures for the Reporting Period ............................... 3-1 4 West Aircraft Maintenance Area Mitigation Measures for the Reporting Period .............. 4-1 5 Midfield Satellite Concourse North Project Mitigation Measures for Reporting Period .... 5-1 List of Tables Table 2-1 Summary of General Mitigation Measures in the 2017 Monitoring Period Measures for Which No Action is Required at this Time ................................... 2-1 Table 2-2 Summary of General Mitigation Measures in the 2017 Monitoring Period Ongoing Measures .......................................................................................... 2-4 Table 2-3 Summary of General Mitigation Measures in the 2017 Monitoring Period Completed Measures ..................................................................................... 2-12 Table 2-4 Summary of General Mitigation Measures in the 2017 Monitoring Period Measures that are No Longer Applicable
    [Show full text]
  • DOCKETED Docket Number: 09-AFC-07C Project Title: Palen Solar Power Project - Compliance TN #: 202492 Document Title: Exh
    DOCKETED Docket Number: 09-AFC-07C Project Title: Palen Solar Power Project - Compliance TN #: 202492 Document Title: Exh. 3093. Pratt Testimony, Declaration & CV Description: N/A Filer: Ileene Anderson Organization: Center for Biological Diversity Submitter Role: Intervenor Submission Date: 6/23/2014 3:30:05 PM Docketed Date: 6/23/2014 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission In the Matter of: APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION DOCKET NO. 09-AFC-7 FOR THE PALEN SOLAR ENERGY GENERATING SYSTEM INTERVENOR CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY Exhibit 3093 Testimony of Gordon Pratt PhD Re: Impacts to Flying Invertebrates (Insects) from the Proposed Palen Solar Electric Generating System Docket 09-AFC-7 Summary of Testimony The proposed project will be detrimental to numerous insects, some of which may be very rare and endemic. Due to lack of surveys for invertebrates in general, it is impossible for me to fully evaluate the impacts to the insects. It is my opinion that the proposed project will attract insects to the bright lights created by the focused mirrors, and kill or wound them when they enter into the intense radiation. The attraction and loss of so many insects could create an ecological cascade effect on the landscape that affects many other local species including plants that rely on flying insects for pollination and animals that rely on insects for food. The proposed project in itself as well as in conjunction with other cumulative projects will further imperil already rare species driving them closer to extinction and may result in the need for additional species to be safeguarded under the Endangered Species Act protection.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 BIODIVERSITY REPORT City of Los Angeles
    2018 BIODIVERSITY REPORT City of Los Angeles Appendix B: Singapore Index Methods for Los Angeles Prepared by: Isaac Brown Ecology Studio and LA Sanitation & Environment Appendix B Singapore Index Detailed Methods Appendix B Table of Contents Appendix B Table of Contents ...................................................................................................... i Appendix B1: Singapore Index Indicator 1 ................................................................................. 1 Appendix B2: Singapore Index Indicator 2 ................................................................................. 6 Appendix B3: Singapore Index Indicator 3 ................................................................................10 Appendix B4: Singapore Index Indicator 4 ................................................................................16 Appendix B5: Singapore Index Indicator 5 ................................................................................39 Appendix B6: Singapore Index Indicator 6 ................................................................................44 Appendix B7: Singapore Index Indicator 7 ................................................................................52 Appendix B8: Singapore Index Indicator 8 ................................................................................55 Appendix B9: Singapore Index Indicator 9 ................................................................................58 Appendix B10: Singapore Index Indicator 10 ............................................................................61
    [Show full text]
  • Terrestrial Arthropod Species
    Biological assessment of the greater Ballona Wetlands region: Terrestrial Arthropod species Ruch Mattoni April 12, 1991 To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering -Aldo Leopold INTRODUCTION The following report summarizes findings regarding the terrestrial Arthropod populations of the Playa Vista project area. The study was primarily designed to quantitatively assay two sets of species: those easily identified visually along a regulAr transect and those collected in pitfall taps situated to sample the major communities of areas most representative of historic conditions. The latter were all located in area B. Groups sampled included insects, arachnids, isopods, millipedes, and centipedes. A section is devoted to background information and discussion of all species of special interest, as efforts were made to survey their status. A comprehensive summary is presented of the total arthropod collections of Nagano (1981) and•this study with comparative information from the nearby El Segundo sand dune system and coastal prairie at LAX. Historical perspectives The greater Ballona wetlands region was composed of five distinct communities: tidal salt marsh, freshwater marsh, riparian, coastal dune scrub, and coastal sage scrub. The first four communities are all highly degraded today with the entire ecosystem essentially collapsed. This assessment is inferred from the quantitative loss of species among all groups of organisms for which adequate documentation exists. The loss of native species is exacerbated by increases in alien species. Across much of the area alien plants and animals together approach 100% of the total biomass. A map of extrapolated historic community distributions, figure 1, presents one concept superimposed over the 1894 Geological survey quadrangle.
    [Show full text]
  • Critique of Otay Mesa SRP EIR CEQA Compliance Section 4.1.2.1 Ostensibly Discusses Alternative Project Sites Capable of Achievin
    Critique of Otay Mesa SRP EIR CEQA compliance Section 4.1.2.1 ostensibly discusses alternative project sites capable of achieving the project goals. Unfortunately, this section of the EIR does not identify any specific alternative location(s) and contains no specific discussion of impacts associated with alternative project locations. Instead, this section dismissively concludes that any such locations would likely have the same sort of environmental impacts. This does not meet the CEQA requirement to provide sufficient specific information to permit a reviewer to objectively assess the impacts associated with specific alternative locations and to compare those impacts with those identified for the proposed preferred project location. The key here is that CEQA requires that an EIR identify environmental impacts of a project and those of a range of reasonable alternatives. Absent such information, no objective comparison is possible and the EIR needs to be amended and resubmitted for public review to correct this deficiency. Just as the environmental impacts of the various onsite alternatives are similar, but vary in specific impacts to resident biological resources, so would alternative project locations have their own unique suites of environmental impacts. Furthermore, there is no indication that the project objectives could not be achieved, substantially or entirely, by considering an alternative project location removed from the biologically sensitive Otay Mesa area. Here it is notable that CEQA requires consideration of project alternatives unconstrained by cost considerations. The goal is to identify an environmentally superior project alternative. In this instance, because impacts to sensitive biological resources are scattered throughout the project site, the best alternative may be that which has the smallest footprint (Alternative G), an unidentified alternative location, or no project at all.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Miami Blue Butterfly Revised Management Plan
    DRAFT MIAMI BLUE BUTTERFLY REVISED MANAGEMENT PLAN Cyclargus thomasi bethunebakeri Adopted: October 31, 2003 Revised: June 2010 FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 MIAMI BLUE MANAGEMENT PLAN REVISION TEAM Sponsors: Timothy A. Breault, Director Division of Habitat and Species Conservation Gil McRae, Director Fish and Wildlife Research Institute Sponsor Representative: Elsa M. Haubold, Section Leader Division of Habitat and Species Conservation Team Leader: David Cook, Invertebrate Coordinator Division of Habitat and Species Conservation Team Members: Ricardo Zambrano, Division of Habitat and Species Conservation Mary Truglio, Division of Habitat and Species Conservation ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In addition to the persons listed above, thanks are also due to Lindsay Nester, who assisted with sections in the document and recorded the minutes of the key stakeholder meeting, to Kat Diersen, who facilitated the key stakeholder meeting, and to Kim McShane, who edited an earlier draft. Jaret Daniels, Marc Minno, Paula Halupa, and Anne Morkill followed their participation in the key stakeholder meeting by submitting invaluable information, tables and figures, references, and proposed edits to be considered for inclusion in the plan. Mark Salvato (USFWS) also provided written comments. Thanks are extended to the entire roster of participants of the key stakeholder meeting for their generous contribution of time, energy, and ideas for Miami blue conservation. The meeting was held January
    [Show full text]
  • Recovery Plan for the El Segundo Blue Butterfly
    Recovery Plan for the El Segundo Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni) As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use ofour landand water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses ourenergy and mineral resourcesand worksto assure that theirdevelopment is in the best interests ofall our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island Territories under U.S. administration. EL SEGUNDO BLUE BUTTERFLY (Euphilotes battoides allyni) RECOVERY PLAN Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon Approved: Mana r, alif 1 evada Operations Office, Region 1, U.s. Date: I DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and other affected and interested parties. Recovery teams serve as independent advisors to the Service. Plans are reviewed by the public and submitted to additional peer review before they are adopted by the Service. Objectives ofthe plan will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well the need to address other priorities. Costs indicated for task implementation and/or time ofachievement ofrecovery are estimates and subject to change.
    [Show full text]
  • Terrestrial Invertebrates Terrestrial
    Baseline Assessment Program: 2010-2011 Report 2010-2011 Program: Assessment Baseline TERRESTRIAL INVERTEBRATES TERRESTRIAL er D. Coop Photo credit: CHAPTER 10: TERRESTRIAL INVERTEBRATES Ballona Wetlands Ecological Reserve, Los Angeles, California Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission Prepared for: California State Coastal Conservancy June 2012 Authors: Karina Johnston, Elena Del Giudice-Tuttle, and Sean Anderson TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 10-1 METHODS ................................................................................................................................................ 10-1 Site Locations and Times ...................................................................................................................... 10-1 Field Methods ...................................................................................................................................... 10-1 Laboratory and Analysis Methods ....................................................................................................... 10-1 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................... 10-2 General Results and Overall Trends ..................................................................................................... 10-2 Marsh Results for both Baseline Years ...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Saving the Blue Butterfly – LMU Magazine
    1/31/2019 Saving the Blue Butterfly – LMU Magazine To search, type and hit enter. CONVERSATION SAVING THE BLUE BUTTERFLY In 1976, prospects for the El Segundo blue buttery were so dire that the insect was placed on the endangered species list. Since then, community organizations and individuals have worked on restoring the buttery’s habitat in coastal dunes. But although preservation eorts have produced results, the blue buttery’s survival remains a concern. S H A R E T H I S S T O R Y facebook twitter email share A little-known natural treasure found just minutes from the LMU More About Blue Butteries campus is the El Segundo blue buttery. The species inhabits sand dune environments along the coast and has thrived in two of four nearby To learn more about the restoration work of Friends of Ballona Wetlands, go here. Members of the public can locations, including the El Segundo Blue Buttery Preserve at the join in community activities, including restoration Airport Dunes, located just beyond the western edge of Los Angeles projects as well as tours of the wetlands. A calendar of International Airport, and an eight-acre patch of dunes in the Ballona community activities is here. In addition, The Bay Wetlands. Preservation work and dune restoration by community and Foundation, through Santa Monica Bay Restoration, also organizes volunteer restoration projects in both environmental organizations, including Friends of Ballona Wetlands, the Ballona Dunes and the Airport Dunes at LAX. has been crucial to the buttery’s survival today. But in 1976, when its existence was in jeopardy, the El Segundo blue buttery was added to the federal endangered species list, the rst insect to receive such protection.
    [Show full text]
  • El Segundo Blue Recovery Plan 1998
    Recovery Plan for the El Segundo Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes battoides allyni) As the Nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use ofour landand water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses ourenergy and mineral resourcesand worksto assure that theirdevelopment is in the best interests ofall our people. The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities and for people who live in island Territories under U.S. administration. EL SEGUNDO BLUE BUTTERFLY (Euphilotes battoides allyni) RECOVERY PLAN Region 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon Approved: Mana r, alif 1 evada Operations Office, Region 1, U.s. Date: I DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and other affected and interested parties. Recovery teams serve as independent advisors to the Service. Plans are reviewed by the public and submitted to additional peer review before they are adopted by the Service. Objectives ofthe plan will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well the need to address other priorities. Costs indicated for task implementation and/or time ofachievement ofrecovery are estimates and subject to change.
    [Show full text]