Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 8/Thursday, January 12, 2017/Notices

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 8/Thursday, January 12, 2017/Notices 4022 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Background indicating that the requested listing of In 1997, we added Alabama shad to Alabama shad may be warranted. National Oceanic and Atmospheric our Candidate Species List (62 FR On April 28, 2011, in response to the Administration 37562; July 14, 1997). At that time, a negative 90-day finding, CBD filed a candidate species was defined as any notice of intent to sue the Department [Docket No. 130626570–6999–02] species being considered by the of Commerce (DOC) and NMFS for Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for alleged violations of the ESA in making its finding. CBD filed the lawsuit in the RIN 0648–XC742 listing as an endangered or a threatened species, but not yet the subject of a U.S. District Court for the District of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife proposed rule (49 FR 38900; October 1, Columbia on January 18, 2012. On June 21, 2013, CBD and DOC/NMFS settled and Plants: Notice of 12-Month Finding 1984). In 2004, we created the Species the lawsuit. We agreed to reevaluate the on a Petition To List Alabama Shad as of Concern list (69 FR 19975; April 15, original listing petition, as well as Threatened or Endangered Under the 2004) to encompass species for which information in our files, including some Endangered Species Act we have some concerns regarding their additional information we acquired after status and threats, but for which the original 90-day finding published on AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries insufficient information is available to February 17, 2011, and publish a new Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and indicate a need to list the species under 90-day finding. On September 19, 2013, Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA). we published a 90-day finding with our Commerce. Twenty-five candidate species, determination that the petition ACTION: Notice of 12-month finding. including the Alabama shad, were presented substantial scientific and transferred to the Species of Concern list SUMMARY: We, NMFS, announce a 12- commercial information indicating that at that time because they were not being the petitioned action may be warranted month finding and listing determination considered for ESA listing and were on a petition to list Alabama shad (78 FR 57611). better suited for Species of Concern Our 90-day finding requested (Alosa alabamae) as threatened or status due to some concerns and endangered under the Endangered scientific and commercial information uncertainty regarding their biological from the public to inform a review of Species Act (ESA). We have completed status and threats. The Species of a comprehensive review of the status of the status of the species. We requested Concern status does not carry any information on the status of Alabama Alabama shad in response to the procedural or substantive protections petition submitted by the Center for shad, including: (1) Historical and under the ESA. current distribution and abundance of Biological Diversity (CBD), Alabama On April 20, 2010, the Center for this species throughout its range, Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, Biological Diversity (CBD), Alabama including data addressing presence or Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration Rivers Alliance, Clinch Coalition, absence at a riverine scale; (2) historical Network, Tennessee Forests Council, Dogwood Alliance, Gulf Restoration and current population sizes and trends; and the West Virginia Highlands Network, Tennessee Forests Council, (3) biological information (life history, Conservancy (petitioners). Based on the and the West Virginia Highlands genetics, population connectivity, etc.); best scientific and commercial Conservancy (petitioners) submitted a (4) landings and trade data; (5) information available on the status of petition to the Secretaries of Interior and management, regulatory, and Alabama shad, we have determined that Commerce, as well as to the Regional enforcement information; (6) any the species does not warrant listing at Director of the Southeast Region of the current or planned activities that may this time. We conclude that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service adversely impact the species; and (7) Alabama shad is not currently in danger (USFWS), to list 404 aquatic, riparian, ongoing or planned efforts to protect of extinction throughout all or a and wetland species from the and restore the species and its habitat. significant portion of its range and is not southeastern United States as threatened We received information from the likely to become so within the or endangered under the ESA. The public in response to the 90-day finding, foreseeable future. petitioners also requested that critical and we incorporated all relevant DATES: This finding was made on habitat be designated for all petitioned information into our review of the status January 12, 2017. species. We notified the USFWS’ of Alabama shad. Southeast Region by letter dated May 3, ADDRESSES: The reference list associated Listing Species Under the ESA with this determination is available by 2010, that the Alabama shad, one of the submitting a request to the Species 404 petitioned species, would fall under We are responsible for determining Conservation Branch Chief, Protected NMFS’ jurisdiction based on the August whether Alabama shad warrants listing Resources Division, NMFS Southeast 1974 Memorandum of Understanding as threatened or endangered under the Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue regarding jurisdictional responsibilities ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) To be South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701–5505, and listing procedures between the two considered for listing under the ESA, a Attn: Alabama shad 12-month finding. agencies. We proposed to USFWS that group of organisms must constitute a The reference list is also available we would evaluate the petition, for ‘‘species,’’ which is defined in section 3 electronically at:http:// Alabama shad only, for the purpose of of the ESA to include taxonomic species sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_ the 90-day finding and any required and ‘‘any subspecies of fish, or wildlife, resources/listing_petitions/species_esa_ subsequent listing action. On May 14, or plants, and any distinct population consideration/index.html 2010, we sent the petitioners segment of any species of vertebrate fish confirmation we would be evaluating or wildlife which interbreeds when FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: the petition for Alabama shad. On mature.’’ Section 3 of the ESA defines Kelly Shotts, NMFS, Southeast Regional February 17, 2011, we published a an endangered species as ‘‘any species Office (727) 824–5312; or Marta negative 90-day finding in the Federal which is in danger of extinction Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Register (76 FR 9320) stating that the throughout all or a significant portion of Resources (301) 427–8469. petition did not present substantial its range’’ and a threatened species as SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: scientific or commercial information one ‘‘which is likely to become an VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:22 Jan 11, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12JAN2.SGM 12JAN2 mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 8 / Thursday, January 12, 2017 / Notices 4023 endangered species within the likely to become so in the foreseeable any of the other Alosa species and foreseeable future throughout all or a future, throughout all of its range. Alabama shad (Kreiser and Schaefer significant portion of its range.’’ Thus, We describe each of the steps listed 2009). we interpret an ‘‘endangered species’’ to above in detail in the following sections Diet be one that is presently in danger of of this finding. Alabama shad are likely generalist extinction. A ‘‘threatened species,’’ on Review of the Status of Alabama Shad the other hand, is not presently in insect feeders. Mickle et al. (2013) danger of extinction, but is likely to We have identified the best available conducted stomach content analyses on become so in the foreseeable future (that scientific and commercial information individuals collected from the is, at a later time). In other words, the in order to conduct a comprehensive Pascagoula and Apalachicola Rivers. primary statutory difference between a review of the status of Alabama shad. The stomach contents of the smallest threatened and endangered species is Unlike many of our other 12-month juvenile Alabama shad (those less than the timing of when a species may be in findings, we have not developed a 50 millimeters), collected exclusively danger of extinction, either presently separate status review report. Instead we from the Pascagoula River, were made (endangered) or in the foreseeable future present all available relevant up primarily of semi-decomposed algae (threatened). information for Alabama shad in this and other unidentifiable organics, Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires Federal Register notice. suggesting filter feeding or particulate us to make listing determinations based Taxonomy feeding of smaller prey. As the size of solely on the best scientific and Alabama shad taken from the commercial data available after Alabama shad (Alosa alabamae) was Pascagoula River increased, the conducting a review of the status of the first described by David Starr Jordan percentage of terrestrial and aquatic species and after taking into account and Barton Warren Evermann in 1896 in insects in the stomach contents efforts being made by any state or the Black Warrior River near increased.
Recommended publications
  • List of TMDL Implementation Plans with Tmdls Organized by Basin
    Latest 305(b)/303(d) List of Streams List of Stream Reaches With TMDLs and TMDL Implementation Plans - Updated June 2011 Total Maximum Daily Loadings TMDL TMDL PLAN DELIST BASIN NAME HUC10 REACH NAME LOCATION VIOLATIONS TMDL YEAR TMDL PLAN YEAR YEAR Altamaha 0307010601 Bullard Creek ~0.25 mi u/s Altamaha Road to Altamaha River Bio(sediment) TMDL 2007 09/30/2009 Altamaha 0307010601 Cobb Creek Oconee Creek to Altamaha River DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010601 Cobb Creek Oconee Creek to Altamaha River FC 2012 Altamaha 0307010601 Milligan Creek Uvalda to Altamaha River DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 2006 Altamaha 0307010601 Milligan Creek Uvalda to Altamaha River FC TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010601 Oconee Creek Headwaters to Cobb Creek DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010601 Oconee Creek Headwaters to Cobb Creek FC TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010602 Ten Mile Creek Little Ten Mile Creek to Altamaha River Bio F 2012 Altamaha 0307010602 Ten Mile Creek Little Ten Mile Creek to Altamaha River DO TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010603 Beards Creek Spring Branch to Altamaha River Bio F 2012 Altamaha 0307010603 Five Mile Creek Headwaters to Altamaha River Bio(sediment) TMDL 2007 09/30/2009 Altamaha 0307010603 Goose Creek U/S Rd. S1922(Walton Griffis Rd.) to Little Goose Creek FC TMDL 2001 TMDL PLAN 08/31/2003 Altamaha 0307010603 Mushmelon Creek Headwaters to Delbos Bay Bio F 2012 Altamaha 0307010604 Altamaha River Confluence of Oconee and Ocmulgee Rivers to ITT Rayonier
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Sensitivity Index Guidelines Version 2.0
    NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 115 Environmental Sensitivity Index Guidelines Version 2.0 October 1997 Seattle, Washington noaa NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION National Ocean Service Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment National Ocean Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department of Commerce The Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment (ORCA) provides decisionmakers comprehensive, scientific information on characteristics of the oceans, coastal areas, and estuaries of the United States of America. The information ranges from strategic, national assessments of coastal and estuarine environmental quality to real-time information for navigation or hazardous materials spill response. Through its National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program, ORCA uses uniform techniques to monitor toxic chemical contamination of bottom-feeding fish, mussels and oysters, and sediments at about 300 locations throughout the United States. A related NS&T Program of directed research examines the relationships between contaminant exposure and indicators of biological responses in fish and shellfish. Through the Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division (HAZMAT) Scientific Support Coordination program, ORCA provides critical scientific support for planning and responding to spills of oil or hazardous materials into coastal environments. Technical guidance includes spill trajectory predictions, chemical hazard analyses, and assessments of the sensitivity of marine and estuarine environments to spills. To fulfill the responsibilities of the Secretary of Commerce as a trustee for living marine resources, HAZMAT’s Coastal Resource Coordination program provides technical support to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency during all phases of the remedial process to protect the environment and restore natural resources at hundreds of waste sites each year.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations
    Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations Revised Report and Documentation Prepared for: Department of Defense U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Submitted by: January 2004 Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations: Revised Report and Documentation CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary..........................................................................................iii 2.0 Introduction – Project Description................................................................. 1 3.0 Methods ................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 NatureServe Data................................................................................................ 3 3.2 DOD Installations............................................................................................... 5 3.3 Species at Risk .................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Results................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Nationwide Assessment of Species at Risk on DOD Installations..................... 8 4.2 Assessment of Species at Risk by Military Service.......................................... 13 4.3 Assessment of Species at Risk on Installations ................................................ 15 5.0 Conclusion and Management Recommendations.................................... 22 6.0 Future Directions.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rule 391-3-6-.03. Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Rule 391-3-6-.03. Water Use Classifications and Water Quality Standards ( 1) Purpose. The establishment of water quality standards. (2) W ate r Quality Enhancement: (a) The purposes and intent of the State in establishing Water Quality Standards are to provide enhancement of water quality and prevention of pollution; to protect the public health or welfare in accordance with the public interest for drinking water supplies, conservation of fish, wildlife and other beneficial aquatic life, and agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other reasonable and necessary uses and to maintain and improve the biological integrity of the waters of the State. ( b) The following paragraphs describe the three tiers of the State's waters. (i) Tier 1 - Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected. (ii) Tier 2 - Where the quality of the waters exceed levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water, that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the division finds, after full satisfaction of the intergovernmental coordination and public participation provisions of the division's continuing planning process, that allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located.
    [Show full text]
  • Hotspots, Extinction Risk and Conservation Priorities of Greater Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico Marine Bony Shorefishes
    Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons Biological Sciences Theses & Dissertations Biological Sciences Summer 2016 Hotspots, Extinction Risk and Conservation Priorities of Greater Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico Marine Bony Shorefishes Christi Linardich Old Dominion University, cmlinard@gmail.com Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/biology_etds Part of the Biodiversity Commons, Biology Commons, Environmental Health and Protection Commons, and the Marine Biology Commons Recommended Citation Linardich, Christi. "Hotspots, Extinction Risk and Conservation Priorities of Greater Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico Marine Bony Shorefishes" (2016). Master of Science (MS), Thesis, Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/hydh-jp82 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/biology_etds/13 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Biological Sciences at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Biological Sciences Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@odu.edu. HOTSPOTS, EXTINCTION RISK AND CONSERVATION PRIORITIES OF GREATER CARIBBEAN AND GULF OF MEXICO MARINE BONY SHOREFISHES by Christi Linardich B.A. December 2006, Florida Gulf Coast University A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE BIOLOGY OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY August 2016 Approved by: Kent E. Carpenter (Advisor) Beth Polidoro (Member) Holly Gaff (Member) ABSTRACT HOTSPOTS, EXTINCTION RISK AND CONSERVATION PRIORITIES OF GREATER CARIBBEAN AND GULF OF MEXICO MARINE BONY SHOREFISHES Christi Linardich Old Dominion University, 2016 Advisor: Dr. Kent E. Carpenter Understanding the status of species is important for allocation of resources to redress biodiversity loss.
    [Show full text]
  • Alabama Shad Alosa Alabamae
    Alabama shad Alosa alabamae Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Chordata Class: Actinopterygii Order: Clupeiformes Family: Clupeidae ILLINOIS STATUS common, native FEATURES This species has no lateral line. The scales in the middle of its belly are jagged. An adult Alabama shad may reach 20 and one-fourth inches in length. There are no teeth on the jaws and no scales on the head. The lower jaw is equal to or projects slightly beyond the snout. The lower jaw has dark speckles. Sides and belly are silvery. The back and upper sides are green or blue. The teeth on the tongue are in a single row. There is an adipose eyelid. The body is compressed side-to-side. There are no spines in the fins. The dorsal fin is much farther forward on the body than the anal fin. BEHAVIORS This species lives most of its life in saltwater habitats. It migrates from January through July from the Gulf of Mexico to freshwater rivers and streams to reproduce. It is believed that the juveniles swim to the Gulf of Mexico a few months after hatching. The Alabama shad’s population has been declining in large part due to the construction of locks and dams along large rivers that stop its spawning migrations. Juveniles eat fishes and insects. Adults do not feed when on spawning runs and die after spawning. HABITATS Aquatic Habitats rivers and streams Woodland Habitats none Prairie and Edge Habitats none © Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 2020. Biodiversity of Illinois. .
    [Show full text]
  • Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation for Seventy-Two Stream Segments
    Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation for Seventy-Two Stream Segments in the Oconee River Basin for Fecal Coliform Submitted to: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Atlanta, Georgia Submitted by: The Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division Atlanta, Georgia January 2007 Total Maximum Daily Load Evaluation January 2007 Oconee River Basin (Fecal Coliform) Table of Contents Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Watershed Description......................................................................................................1 1.3 Water Quality Standard.....................................................................................................5 2.0 WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................... 15 3.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................... 16 3.1 Point Source Assessment ............................................................................................... 16 3.2 Nonpoint Source Assessment........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Integrated 305(B)/303(D) List
    2020 Integrated 305(b)/303(d) List - Streams Reach Name/ID Reach Location/County River Basin/ Assessment/ Cause/ Size/Unit Category/ Notes Use Data Provider Source Priority Alex Creek Mason Cowpen Branch to Altamaha Not Supporting DO 3 4a TMDL completed DO 2002. Altamaha River GAR030701060503 Wayne Fishing 1,55,10 NP Miles Altamaha River Confluence of Oconee and Altamaha Supporting 72 1 TMDL completed Fish Tissue (Mercury) 2002. Ocmulgee Rivers to ITT Rayonier GAR030701060401 Appling, Wayne, Jeff Davis Fishing 1,55 Miles Altamaha River ITT Rayonier to Altamaha Assessment 20 3 TMDL completed Fish Tissue (Mercury) 2002. More Penholoway Creek Pending data need to be collected and evaluated before it GAR030701060402 Wayne Fishing 10,55 Miles can be determined whether the designated use of Fishing is being met. Altamaha River Penholoway Creek to Altamaha Supporting 27 1 Butler River GAR030701060501 Wayne, Glynn, McIntosh Fishing 1,55 Miles Beards Creek Chapel Creek to Spring Altamaha Not Supporting Bio F 7 4a TMDL completed Bio F 2017. Branch GAR030701060308 Tattnall, Long Fishing 4 NP Miles Beards Creek Spring Branch to Altamaha Not Supporting Bio F 11 4a TMDL completed Bio F in 2012. Altamaha River GAR030701060301 Tattnall Fishing 1,55,10,4 NP, UR Miles Big Cedar Creek Griffith Branch to Little Altamaha Assessment 5 3 This site has a narrative rank of fair for Cedar Creek Pending macroinvertebrates. Waters with a narrative rank GAR030701070108 Washington Fishing 59 Miles of fair will remain in Category 3 until EPD completes the reevaluation of the metrics used to assess macroinvertebrate data. Big Cedar Creek Little Cedar Creek (at Altamaha Not Supporting FC 6 5 EPD needs to determine the "natural DO" for the Donovan Hwy) to Little area before a use assessment is made.
    [Show full text]
  • False Dichotomy Between Growth and Clean Water? the Harpeth River Experience with Citizen Suits and Beyond
    River Management Society Supporting Professionals Who Study, Protect, and Manage RMS SPRING 2017 VOLUME 30, NO. 1 North America’s Rivers Southeast Focus RMS Pro-Purchase News..................... 4 Virginia’s Scenic Rivers ........................ 6 Restoring the Mulberry River ................ 8 Tennessee Wildlife Federation Gift ....... 9 The Obion Basin Fight ........................ 10 Family Fun on the Pascagoula ........... 13 Tennessee River Basin Network......... 14 Conservation Easements - A Tool ....... 15 Bama’s Bone Dry ................................ 16 Wonks, Water, Walls, and... .............. 18 Georgia Water Trails ........................... 21 San Antonio River Authority ................ 24 RMS Chapter Updates ....................... 27 Innovative Tennessee River Project ... 28 Google Earth aerial image of the Franklin sewer plant and Harpeth River. False Dichotomy Between Growth and Clean Water? The Harpeth River Experience with Citizen Suits and Beyond by James M. Redwine The State Scenic Harpeth River, Greater Founded in 1999, the Harpeth River So often, the choice is portrayed to be Nashville, and the Harpeth River Watershed Association is a 501(c)(3) between clean water and growth, with Watershed Association not-for-profit, science-based conservation clean water inevitably the loser. The organization dedicated to protecting the Harpeth River Watershed Association The Harpeth River is among the State Scenic Harpeth River and clean (HRWA) does not believe that this always unique freshwater river systems of the water in Tennessee. To protect the river has to be the case. Rather, HRWA’s recent Southeast. These systems contain some and effect change, HRWA collaborates experience with a citizen suit under the of the greatest variety of aquatic life with landowners, businesses, community, federal Clean Water Act (CWA) (and its in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Table 7: Species Changing IUCN Red List Status (2020-2021)
    IUCN Red List version 2021-1: Table 7 Last Updated: 25 March 2021 Table 7: Species changing IUCN Red List Status (2020-2021) Published listings of a species' status may change for a variety of reasons (genuine improvement or deterioration in status; new information being available that was not known at the time of the previous assessment; taxonomic changes; corrections to mistakes made in previous assessments, etc. To help Red List users interpret the changes between the Red List updates, a summary of species that have changed category between 2020 (IUCN Red List version 2020-3) and 2021 (IUCN Red List version 2021-1) and the reasons for these changes is provided in the table below. IUCN Red List Categories: EX - Extinct, EW - Extinct in the Wild, CR - Critically Endangered [CR(PE) - Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct), CR(PEW) - Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct in the Wild)], EN - Endangered, VU - Vulnerable, LR/cd - Lower Risk/conservation dependent, NT - Near Threatened (includes LR/nt - Lower Risk/near threatened), DD - Data Deficient, LC - Least Concern (includes LR/lc - Lower Risk, least concern). Reasons for change: G - Genuine status change (genuine improvement or deterioration in the species' status); N - Non-genuine status change (i.e., status changes due to new information, improved knowledge of the criteria, incorrect data used previously, taxonomic revision, etc.); E - Previous listing was an Error. IUCN Red List IUCN Red Reason for Red List Scientific name Common name (2020) List (2021) change version Category
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Integrated 305(B)
    2018 Integrated 305(b)/303(d) List - Streams Reach Name/ID Reach Location/County River Basin/ Assessment/ Cause/ Size/Unit Category/ Notes Use Data Provider Source Priority Alex Creek Mason Cowpen Branch to Altamaha Not Supporting DO 3 4a TMDL completed DO 2002. Altamaha River GAR030701060503 Wayne Fishing 1,55,10 NP Miles Altamaha River Confluence of Oconee and Altamaha Supporting 72 1 TMDL completed TWR 2002. Ocmulgee Rivers to ITT Rayonier GAR030701060401 Appling, Wayne, Jeff Davis Fishing 1,55 Miles Altamaha River ITT Rayonier to Penholoway Altamaha Assessment 20 3 TMDL completed TWR 2002. More data need to Creek Pending be collected and evaluated before it can be determined whether the designated use of Fishing is being met. GAR030701060402 Wayne Fishing 10,55 Miles Altamaha River Penholoway Creek to Butler Altamaha Supporting 27 1 River GAR030701060501 Wayne, Glynn, McIntosh Fishing 1,55 Miles Beards Creek Chapel Creek to Spring Branch Altamaha Not Supporting Bio F 7 4a TMDL completed Bio F 2017. GAR030701060308 Tattnall, Long Fishing 4 NP Miles Beards Creek Spring Branch to Altamaha Altamaha Not Supporting Bio F 11 4a TMDL completed Bio F in 2012. River GAR030701060301 Tattnall Fishing 1,55,10,4 NP, UR Miles Big Cedar Creek Griffith Branch to Little Cedar Altamaha Assessment 5 3 This site has a narrative rank of fair for Creek Pending macroinvertebrates. Waters with a narrative rank of fair will remain in Category 3 until EPD completes the reevaluation of the metrics used to assess macroinvertebrate data. GAR030701070108 Washington Fishing 59 Miles Big Cedar Creek Little Cedar Creek to Ohoopee Altamaha Not Supporting DO, FC 3 4a TMDLs completed DO 2002 & FC (2002 & 2007).
    [Show full text]