DOCSLIB.ORG

American Burying Beetle Habitat Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, & Texas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
American Burying Beetle Habitat Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, & Texas AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER’S AMERICAN BURYING BEETLE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN IN OKLAHOMA, ARKANSAS, & TEXAS PREPARED FOR: American Electric Power 212 East 6th Street Tulsa, Oklahoma PREPARED BY: Enercon Services, Inc. 1601 Northwest Expressway, Suite 1000 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73118 ICF 14123 Denver West Parkway, Suite 100 Golden, Colorado 80401 PHOTO: USFWS AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER’S AMERICAN BURYING BEETLE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN IN OKLAHOMA, ARKANSAS, AND TEXAS P REPARED FOR : American Electric Power 212 East 6th Street Tulsa, OK Contact: Kelli Boren P R E P A R E D B Y : Enercon Services, Inc. 1601 Northwest Expressway, Suite 1000 Oklahoma City, OK 73118 ICF 14123 Denver West Parkway, Suite 100 Golden, CO 80401 September 2018 Enercon Services, Inc., and ICF. 2018. American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas. September. Prepared for: American Electric Power. Contents List of Tables and Figures ............................................................................................................................................. v List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... vi Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Overview .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 Applicant’s Purpose and Need ......................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Scope of the Habitat Conservation Plan .......................................................................... 1-2 1.2.1 Plan Area .......................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.2.2 Covered Activities ............................................................................................................ 1-2 1.2.3 Covered Species ............................................................................................................... 1-3 1.2.4 Permit Duration ............................................................................................................... 1-6 1.3 Regulatory Setting............................................................................................................ 1-7 1.3.1 Federal Endangered Species Act ...................................................................................... 1-7 1.3.2 National Environmental Policy Act .................................................................................. 1-9 1.3.3 National Historic Preservation Act ................................................................................... 1-9 1.3.4 Arkansas Endangered Species Act ................................................................................. 1-10 1.3.5 Oklahoma Wildlife Conservation Code .......................................................................... 1-10 1.3.6 Texas Threatened and Endangered Species Act ............................................................ 1-10 1.4 Document Organization ................................................................................................. 1-10 Chapter 2 Covered Activities ........................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Operations and Maintenance of Facilities ....................................................................... 2-2 2.2.1 Reconductoring ................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.2.2 Isolated Pole Replacement and Repair ............................................................................ 2-3 2.2.3 Emergency Response and Outage Repair ........................................................................ 2-3 2.2.4 Routine Maintenance and Inspections ............................................................................ 2-3 2.2.5 Vegetation Management ................................................................................................. 2-4 2.3 Construction of Lines and Facilities ................................................................................. 2-4 2.3.1 Construction and Upgrading of Aboveground Electric Lines ................................................. 2-4 2.3.2 Road Construction and Improvement ............................................................................. 2-5 2.3.3 New Construction or Expansion of Support Facilities...................................................... 2-5 2.4 Post-Construction Restoration Activities ......................................................................... 2-6 American Electric Power’s American Burying Beetle Habitat September 2018 i Conservation Plan in Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Texas American Electric Power Contents Chapter 3 Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Physical Resources ........................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2.1 Plan Area .......................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2.2 Regional Geology and Topography .................................................................................. 3-2 3.2.3 Hydrology ......................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.2.4 Climate and Climate Change ............................................................................................ 3-3 3.3 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................ 3-3 3.3.1 Land Cover ....................................................................................................................... 3-3 3.4 American Burying Beetle ................................................................................................. 3-4 3.4.1 Status ............................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.4.2 Species Description .......................................................................................................... 3-5 3.4.3 Life History ....................................................................................................................... 3-5 3.4.4 Range ............................................................................................................................... 3-6 3.4.5 Habitat ............................................................................................................................. 3-8 3.4.6 Threats ........................................................................................................................... 3-11 Chapter 4 Effects Analysis and Take Assessment .............................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Impact Mechanisms ......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2.1 Soil Disturbance and Movement ..................................................................................... 4-1 4.2.2 Off-Road Travel by Vehicles and Heavy Equipment ........................................................ 4-2 4.2.3 Artificial Lighting .............................................................................................................. 4-3 4.2.4 Human Presence and Movement .................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.5 Altered Soil Moisture ....................................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.6 Erosion ............................................................................................................................. 4-4 4.2.7 Predation ......................................................................................................................... 4-4 4.2.8 Food Availability ............................................................................................................... 4-4 4.2.9 Fire ................................................................................................................................... 4-4 4.3 Estimated Incidental Take and Impact of the Taking....................................................... 4-5 4.4 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................................... 4-10 Chapter 5 Conservation Strategy ..................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Definitions .......................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Missouri Bladderpod Rocky, Open Areas
    bladderpod were restricted to limestone glades and Missouri Bladderpod rocky, open areas. Encroachment of woody Physaria filiformis vegetation and introduced grasses such as tall fescue into these habitats, along with large fluctuations in bladderpod populations and urban Guidelines for Landowners development were the reasons for the concern and listing of this species. Using Conservation Practices Missouri Department of Conservation Common name ▪ Missouri Bladderpod Scientific name ▪ Physaria filiformis State status ▪ Endangered Federal status ▪ Threatened Ecology Missouri bladderpod is a small yellow-flowered plant Photo Credit: Missouri Department of Conservation in the mustard family found in southwest Missouri and in northern and western Arkansas. It gets its Recommendations name from the spherical fruits or "bladders" that Managing Missouri bladderpod requires protecting contain seeds. Missouri bladderpods live on and restoring glade communities. Promote land limestone glades and rocky outcroppings and can management activities that reduce woody be locally abundant in rocky pastures. Missouri vegetation and reduce competition from invasive bladderpod is a herbaceous, annual plant growing 4 plants. Areas adjacent to existing Missouri to 8 inches tall, producing numerous slender stems bladderpod sites should be managed in such a way from its base. Missouri bladderpods flower from as to prevent the introduction of nonnative species April to May, producing showy, 4-petaled, bright or possible degradation of the native plant yellow blossoms clustered at the tops of the stems. community. Protect glade habitat from ground Distinctive spherical fruiting “pods” form in mid-May disturbing activities such as highway construction and are located near the top of the stem. The seeds and urban development by avoiding glades for drop to the ground in late May and early June, lie these activities.
    [Show full text]
  • 106Th Annual Meeting of the German Zoological Society Abstracts
    September 13–16, 2013 106th Annual Meeting of the German Zoological Society Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1, 80539 Munich, Germany Abstracts ISBN 978-3-00-043583-6 1 munich Information Content Local Organizers: Abstracts Prof. Dr. Benedikt Grothe, LMU Munich Satellite Symposium I – Neuroethology .......................................... 4 Prof. Dr. Oliver Behrend, MCN-LMU Munich Satellite Symposium II – Perspectives in Animal Physiology .... 33 Satellite Symposium III – 3D EM .......................................................... 59 Conference Office Behavioral Biology ................................................................................... 83 event lab. GmbH Dufourstraße 15 Developmental Biology ......................................................................... 135 D-04107 Leipzig Ecology ......................................................................................................... 148 Germany Evolutionary Biology ............................................................................... 174 www.eventlab.org Morphology................................................................................................ 223 Neurobiology ............................................................................................. 272 Physiology ................................................................................................... 376 ISBN 978-3-00-043583-6 Zoological Systematics ........................................................................... 416
    [Show full text]
  • Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015)
    Working List of Prairie Restricted (Specialist) Insects in Wisconsin (11/26/2015) By Richard Henderson Research Ecologist, WI DNR Bureau of Science Services Summary This is a preliminary list of insects that are either well known, or likely, to be closely associated with Wisconsin’s original native prairie. These species are mostly dependent upon remnants of original prairie, or plantings/restorations of prairie where their hosts have been re-established (see discussion below), and thus are rarely found outside of these settings. The list also includes some species tied to native ecosystems that grade into prairie, such as savannas, sand barrens, fens, sedge meadow, and shallow marsh. The list is annotated with known host(s) of each insect, and the likelihood of its presence in the state (see key at end of list for specifics). This working list is a byproduct of a prairie invertebrate study I coordinated from1995-2005 that covered 6 Midwestern states and included 14 cooperators. The project surveyed insects on prairie remnants and investigated the effects of fire on those insects. It was funded in part by a series of grants from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. So far, the list has 475 species. However, this is a partial list at best, representing approximately only ¼ of the prairie-specialist insects likely present in the region (see discussion below). Significant input to this list is needed, as there are major taxa groups missing or greatly under represented. Such absence is not necessarily due to few or no prairie-specialists in those groups, but due more to lack of knowledge about life histories (at least published knowledge), unsettled taxonomy, and lack of taxonomic specialists currently working in those groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Diversidad Y Distribución De La Familia Asteraceae En México
    Taxonomía y florística Diversidad y distribución de la familia Asteraceae en México JOSÉ LUIS VILLASEÑOR Botanical Sciences 96 (2): 332-358, 2018 Resumen Antecedentes: La familia Asteraceae (o Compositae) en México ha llamado la atención de prominentes DOI: 10.17129/botsci.1872 botánicos en las últimas décadas, por lo que cuenta con una larga tradición de investigación de su riqueza Received: florística. Se cuenta, por lo tanto, con un gran acervo bibliográfico que permite hacer una síntesis y actua- October 2nd, 2017 lización de su conocimiento florístico a nivel nacional. Accepted: Pregunta: ¿Cuál es la riqueza actualmente conocida de Asteraceae en México? ¿Cómo se distribuye a lo February 18th, 2018 largo del territorio nacional? ¿Qué géneros o regiones requieren de estudios más detallados para mejorar Associated Editor: el conocimiento de la familia en el país? Guillermo Ibarra-Manríquez Área de estudio: México. Métodos: Se llevó a cabo una exhaustiva revisión de literatura florística y taxonómica, así como la revi- sión de unos 200,000 ejemplares de herbario, depositados en más de 20 herbarios, tanto nacionales como del extranjero. Resultados: México registra 26 tribus, 417 géneros y 3,113 especies de Asteraceae, de las cuales 3,050 son especies nativas y 1,988 (63.9 %) son endémicas del territorio nacional. Los géneros más relevantes, tanto por el número de especies como por su componente endémico, son Ageratina (164 y 135, respecti- vamente), Verbesina (164, 138) y Stevia (116, 95). Los estados con mayor número de especies son Oaxa- ca (1,040), Jalisco (956), Durango (909), Guerrero (855) y Michoacán (837). Los biomas con la mayor riqueza de géneros y especies son el bosque templado (1,906) y el matorral xerófilo (1,254).
    [Show full text]
  • 2009 Vermilion, Alberta
    September 2010 ISSN 0071‐0709 PROCEEDINGS OF THE 57th ANNUAL MEETING OF THE Entomological Society of Alberta November 5‐7, 2009 Vermilion, Alberta Content Entomological Society of Alberta Board of Directors for 2009 .............................................................. 3 Annual Meeting Committees for 2009 ................................................................................................. 3 President’s Address ............................................................................................................................. 4 Program of the 57th Annual Meeting.................................................................................................... 6 Oral Presentation Abstracts ................................................................................................................10 Poster Presentation Abstracts.............................................................................................................21 Index to Authors.................................................................................................................................24 Minutes of the Entomology Society of Alberta Executive/Board of Directors Meeting ........................26 Minutes of the Entomological Society of Alberta 57th Annual General Meeting...................................29 2009 Regional Director to the Entomological Society of Canada Report ..............................................32 2009 Northern Director’s Reports .......................................................................................................33
    [Show full text]
  • Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae
    SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO BOTANY 0 NCTMBER 52 Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae Harold Robinson, A. Michael Powell, Robert M. King, andJames F. Weedin SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS City of Washington 1981 ABSTRACT Robinson, Harold, A. Michael Powell, Robert M. King, and James F. Weedin. Chromosome Numbers in Compositae, XII: Heliantheae. Smithsonian Contri- butions to Botany, number 52, 28 pages, 3 tables, 1981.-Chromosome reports are provided for 145 populations, including first reports for 33 species and three genera, Garcilassa, Riencourtia, and Helianthopsis. Chromosome numbers are arranged according to Robinson’s recently broadened concept of the Heliantheae, with citations for 212 of the ca. 265 genera and 32 of the 35 subtribes. Diverse elements, including the Ambrosieae, typical Heliantheae, most Helenieae, the Tegeteae, and genera such as Arnica from the Senecioneae, are seen to share a specialized cytological history involving polyploid ancestry. The authors disagree with one another regarding the point at which such polyploidy occurred and on whether subtribes lacking higher numbers, such as the Galinsoginae, share the polyploid ancestry. Numerous examples of aneuploid decrease, secondary polyploidy, and some secondary aneuploid decreases are cited. The Marshalliinae are considered remote from other subtribes and close to the Inuleae. Evidence from related tribes favors an ultimate base of X = 10 for the Heliantheae and at least the subfamily As teroideae. OFFICIALPUBLICATION DATE is handstamped in a limited number of initial copies and is recorded in the Institution’s annual report, Smithsonian Year. SERIESCOVER DESIGN: Leaf clearing from the katsura tree Cercidiphyllumjaponicum Siebold and Zuccarini. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Main entry under title: Chromosome numbers in Compositae, XII.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Release of the Gall Mite, Aceria Drabae
    United States Department of Field release of the gall mite, Agriculture Aceria drabae (Acari: Marketing and Regulatory Eriophyidae), for classical Programs biological control of hoary Animal and Plant Health Inspection cress (Lepidium draba L., Service Lepidium chalapense L., and Lepidium appelianum Al- Shehbaz) (Brassicaceae), in the contiguous United States. Environmental Assessment, January 2018 Field release of the gall mite, Aceria drabae (Acari: Eriophyidae), for classical biological control of hoary cress (Lepidium draba L., Lepidium chalapense L., and Lepidium appelianum Al-Shehbaz) (Brassicaceae), in the contiguous United States. Environmental Assessment, January 2018 Agency Contact: Colin D. Stewart, Assistant Director Pests, Pathogens, and Biocontrol Permits Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 4700 River Rd., Unit 133 Riverdale, MD 20737 Non-Discrimination Policy The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action.
    [Show full text]
  • Verdeca 011718 Draft Hi Yield Soy Bean EA
    Verdeca Petition (17-223-01p) for Determination of Nonregulated Status for HB4 Soybean (Event IND- 00410-5) Genetically Engineered for Increased Yield and Resistance to Glufosinate-Ammonium OECD Unique Identifier: IND-00410-5 Final Environmental Assessment May 2019 Agency Contact Cindy Eck Biotechnology Regulatory Services 4700 River Road USDA, APHIS Riverdale, MD 20737 Fax: (301) 734-8669 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’S TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide specific information. This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended. i ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • List of Insect Species Which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists
    Conservation Biology Research Grants Program Division of Ecological Services © Minnesota Department of Natural Resources List of Insect Species which May Be Tallgrass Prairie Specialists Final Report to the USFWS Cooperating Agencies July 1, 1996 Catherine Reed Entomology Department 219 Hodson Hall University of Minnesota St. Paul MN 55108 phone 612-624-3423 e-mail [email protected] This study was funded in part by a grant from the USFWS and Cooperating Agencies. Table of Contents Summary.................................................................................................. 2 Introduction...............................................................................................2 Methods.....................................................................................................3 Results.....................................................................................................4 Discussion and Evaluation................................................................................................26 Recommendations....................................................................................29 References..............................................................................................33 Summary Approximately 728 insect and allied species and subspecies were considered to be possible prairie specialists based on any of the following criteria: defined as prairie specialists by authorities; required prairie plant species or genera as their adult or larval food; were obligate predators, parasites
    [Show full text]
  • Learning Networks Field Guide
    LEARNING NETWORKS January 2015 FIELD GUIDE Fire Learning Network Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network Prescribed Fire Training Exchanges Scaling-up to Promote Ecosystem Resiliency Copyright 2015 The Nature Conservancy The Fire Learning Network is part of the “Promoting Ecosystem Resilience and Fire Adapted Communities Together: Collaborative Engagement, Collective Action and Co- Ownership of Fire” cooperative agreement among The Nature Conservancy, USDA Forest Service and agencies of the Department of the Interior (Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish & Wildlife Service, National Park Service). In addition to the network of landscape collaboratives, it includes prescribed fire training exchanges and targeted treatments under Scaling-up to Promote Ecosystem Resiliency. For more information, please visit www.conservationgateway.org/fln Network Contacts FLN Director Lynn Decker [email protected] (801) 320-0524 USDA Forest Service Tim Melchert [email protected] (208) 387-5512 Dept. of the Interior Richard Bahr [email protected] (208) 334-1550 The Fire Learning Network Team The Nature Conservancy Fire Team: Jeremy Bailey, Lynn Decker, Guy Duffner, Wendy Fulks, Blane Heumann, Mary Huffman, Heather Montanye, Liz Rank and Chris Topik. The FLN Field Guide is compiled and produced by Liz Rank ([email protected]). Thanks to the numerous landscape and community leaders and partners who provided text, photos and review for this document, and for the valuable work they do in the field. Photo Credits Front cover (top to bottom): Riley Bergseng, Coalition for the Upper South Platte, Robert B. Clontz/TNC; (center) Jeffrey Kane. This page: Jeffrey Kane. Back cover (left to right): Liz Rank/TNC, Katherine Medlock/TNC, Chris Topik/TNC, Mary Huffman/TNC.
    [Show full text]
  • Standardization and Quality Control in Data Collection and Assessment of Threatened Plant Species
    data Review Standardization and Quality Control in Data Collection and Assessment of Threatened Plant Species Lloyd W. Morrison 1,2,* and Craig C. Young 1 1 National Park Service, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Program, 6424 W. Farm Road 182, Republic, MO 65738, USA; [email protected] 2 Department of Biology, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO 65897, USA * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-417-836-3119 Academic Editor: Martin M. Gossner Received: 10 May 2016; Accepted: 9 December 2016; Published: 14 December 2016 Abstract: Informative data collection is important in the identification and conservation of rare plant species. Data sets generated by many small-scale studies may be integrated into large, distributed databases, and statistical tools are being developed to extract meaningful information from such databases. A diversity of field methodologies may be employed across smaller studies, however, resulting in a lack of standardization and quality control, which makes integration more difficult. Here, we present a case study of the population-level monitoring of two threatened plant species with contrasting life history traits that require different field sampling methodologies: the limestone glade bladderpod, Physaria filiformis, and the western prairie fringed orchid, Plantanthera praeclara. Although different data collection methodologies are necessary for these species based on population sizes and plant morphology, the resulting data allow for similar inferences. Different sample designs may frequently be necessary for rare plant sampling, yet still provide comparable data. Various sources of uncertainty may be associated with data collection (e.g., random sampling error, methodological imprecision, observer error), and should always be quantified if possible and included in data sets, and described in metadata.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Article Cytotoxicity of Selected Medicinal and Nonmedicinal Plant Extracts to Microbial and Cervical Cancer Cells
    Hindawi Publishing Corporation Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology Volume 2012, Article ID 106746, 4 pages doi:10.1155/2012/106746 Research Article Cytotoxicity of Selected Medicinal and Nonmedicinal Plant Extracts to Microbial and Cervical Cancer Cells Gary M. Booth,1 Robert D. Malmstrom,1 Erica Kipp,2 and Alexandra Paul1 1 Department of Plant and Wildlife Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA 2 The New York Botanical Garden, 200th Street and Kazimiroff Boulevard, Bronx, NY 10458-5126, USA Correspondence should be addressed to Gary M. Booth, gary [email protected] Received 2 August 2011; Accepted 16 December 2011 Academic Editor: Ikhlas A. Khan Copyright © 2012 Gary M. Booth et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This study investigated the cytotoxicity of 55 species of plants. Each plant was rated as medicinal, or nonmedicinal based on the existing literature. About 79% of the medicinal plants showed some cytotoxicity, while 75% of the nonmedicinal plants showed bioactivity. It appears that Asteraceae, Labiatae, Pinaceae, and Chenopodiaceae were particularly active against human cervical cancer cells. Based on the literature, only three of the 55 plants have been significantly investigated for cytotoxicity. It is clear that there is much toxicological work yet to be done with both medicinal and nonmedicinal plants. 1. Introduction with the most medicinal species. It was hoped that our data might show some trends of toxicity within medicinally rich There is a one-in-four chance that a drug used from any families.
    [Show full text]