DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Environmental Assessment Document Type: EA-Administrative Record Index Field: Final EA Project Name: Cumberland Solar Project Project Number: 2017-11 CUMBERLAND SOLAR PROJECT Limestone County, Alabama FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Prepared for: Tennessee Valley Authority Knoxville, Tennessee Submitted By: Silicon Ranch Corporation Prepared By: HDR, Inc. January 2018 For Information, contact: Ashley A. Pilakowski NEPA Compliance Tennessee Valley Authority 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT 11D Knoxville, Tennessee 37902-1499 Phone: 865-632-2256 Email: [email protected] Table of Contents Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...................................................................... 1-1 1.2 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .............................................. 1-3 1.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT .......................................................................................... 1-4 1.4 PERMITS AND APPROVALS ................................................................................... 1-4 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED SOLAR PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVEs ....... 2-1 2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ..................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................... 2-1 2.2.1 Solar Facility ...................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2.2 Construction ...................................................................................................... 2-5 2.2.3 Project Operations ............................................................................................. 2-8 2.2.4 Decommissioning and Reclamation ................................................................... 2-8 2.3 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION ..................... 2-9 2.4 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................ 2-9 2.5 MITIGATION MEASURES ...................................................................................... 2-13 2.6 THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ........................................................................ 2-13 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................ 3-1 3.1 LAND USE ................................................................................................................ 3-1 3.1.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................... 3-3 3.2 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND PRIME FARMLAND ......................................................... 3-4 3.2.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................... 3-8 3.3 WATER RESOURCES ........................................................................................... 3-11 3.3.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-11 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................... 3-16 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................... 3-21 3.4.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-22 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................... 3-32 3.5 VISUAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................... 3-35 3.5.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-35 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................... 3-37 3.6 NOISE .................................................................................................................... 3-41 3.6.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-41 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................... 3-43 Final Environmental Assessment i Table of Contents 3.7 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS .......................................... 3-44 3.7.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-44 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................... 3-45 3.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 3-47 3.8.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-47 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................... 3-50 3.9 SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE ........................................................................ 3-50 3.9.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-50 3.9.2 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................... 3-51 3.10 TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................... 3-52 3.10.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-52 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................... 3-53 3.11 SOCIOECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ....................................... 3-54 3.11.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-54 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................... 3-57 4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ............................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...................................... 4-1 4.2 RELATIONSHIP OF SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY ..... 4-2 4.3 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES .......... 4-2 4.4 FEDERAL PROJECTS ............................................................................................. 4-2 4.5 STATE AND LOCAL PROJECTS ............................................................................. 4-2 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................................ 5-1 6.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 6-1 List of Tables Table 2.4-1. Comparisons of impacts by alternative. ............................................................. 2-10 Table 3.2-1. Soils on the project site. ...................................................................................... 3-7 Table 3.2-2. Farming statistics for Limestone County and Alabama. ....................................... 3-7 Table 3.4-1. Migratory bird species of concern potentially occurring in the vicinity of the project area. ..................................................................................................................................... 3-25 Table 3.4-2. Federally and state-listed species potentially occurring in Limestone County, Alabama within a 10-mile radius of the project site provided by TVA and those federally and state- listed species potentially occurring in Limestone County, Alabama provided by the USFWS IPaC report. ................................................................................................................................... 3-26 Table 3.7-1. Emission of NAAQS pollutants in Limestone County for 2014. .......................... 3-45 Table 3.7-2. Emissions of GHGs in Limestone County for 2014. ........................................... 3-45 Final Environmental Assessment ii Table of Contents Table 3.11-1. Census and demographic data for the project area, Limestone County, and Alabama. ............................................................................................................................... 3-56 Table 4.5-1. Environmental Assessment project team ............................................................. 5-1 List of Photos Photograph 3.5-1. View of the project site, in a recently timbered area. ................................ 3-36 Photograph 3.5-2. View of agricultural field on project site. ................................................... 3-36 Photograph 3.5-3. View of transmission line and gravel road, bisecting the project site. ....... 3-37 Photograph 3.5-4. View of CSX rail line and TVA substation west of the project site. ........... 3-37 Photograph 3.5-5. Single-axis, tracking photovoltaic system with panels close to maximum tilt as viewed from the east or west. ................................................................................................ 3-39 Photograph 3.5-6. The back of the solar panels. ................................................................... 3-40 List of Figures Figure 1. Site
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Carmine Shiner (Notropis Percobromus) in Canada
    COSEWIC Assessment and Update Status Report on the Carmine Shiner Notropis percobromus in Canada THREATENED 2006 COSEWIC COSEPAC COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF COMITÉ SUR LA SITUATION ENDANGERED WILDLIFE DES ESPÈCES EN PÉRIL IN CANADA AU CANADA COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC 2006. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the carmine shiner Notropis percobromus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 29 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). Previous reports COSEWIC 2001. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the carmine shiner Notropis percobromus and rosyface shiner Notropis rubellus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. v + 17 pp. Houston, J. 1994. COSEWIC status report on the rosyface shiner Notropis rubellus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. 1-17 pp. Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge D.B. Stewart for writing the update status report on the carmine shiner Notropis percobromus in Canada, prepared under contract with Environment Canada, overseen and edited by Robert Campbell, Co-chair, COSEWIC Freshwater Fishes Species Specialist Subcommittee. In 1994 and again in 2001, COSEWIC assessed minnows belonging to the rosyface shiner species complex, including those in Manitoba, as rosyface shiner (Notropis rubellus). For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: (819) 997-4991 / (819) 953-3215 Fax: (819) 994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Évaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur la tête carminée (Notropis percobromus) au Canada – Mise à jour.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE
    Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE LILIACEAE de Jussieu 1789 (Lily Family) (also see AGAVACEAE, ALLIACEAE, ALSTROEMERIACEAE, AMARYLLIDACEAE, ASPARAGACEAE, COLCHICACEAE, HEMEROCALLIDACEAE, HOSTACEAE, HYACINTHACEAE, HYPOXIDACEAE, MELANTHIACEAE, NARTHECIACEAE, RUSCACEAE, SMILACACEAE, THEMIDACEAE, TOFIELDIACEAE) As here interpreted narrowly, the Liliaceae constitutes about 11 genera and 550 species, of the Northern Hemisphere. There has been much recent investigation and re-interpretation of evidence regarding the upper-level taxonomy of the Liliales, with strong suggestions that the broad Liliaceae recognized by Cronquist (1981) is artificial and polyphyletic. Cronquist (1993) himself concurs, at least to a degree: "we still await a comprehensive reorganization of the lilies into several families more comparable to other recognized families of angiosperms." Dahlgren & Clifford (1982) and Dahlgren, Clifford, & Yeo (1985) synthesized an early phase in the modern revolution of monocot taxonomy. Since then, additional research, especially molecular (Duvall et al. 1993, Chase et al. 1993, Bogler & Simpson 1995, and many others), has strongly validated the general lines (and many details) of Dahlgren's arrangement. The most recent synthesis (Kubitzki 1998a) is followed as the basis for familial and generic taxonomy of the lilies and their relatives (see summary below). References: Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (1998, 2003); Tamura in Kubitzki (1998a). Our “liliaceous” genera (members of orders placed in the Lilianae) are therefore divided as shown below, largely following Kubitzki (1998a) and some more recent molecular analyses. ALISMATALES TOFIELDIACEAE: Pleea, Tofieldia. LILIALES ALSTROEMERIACEAE: Alstroemeria COLCHICACEAE: Colchicum, Uvularia. LILIACEAE: Clintonia, Erythronium, Lilium, Medeola, Prosartes, Streptopus, Tricyrtis, Tulipa. MELANTHIACEAE: Amianthium, Anticlea, Chamaelirium, Helonias, Melanthium, Schoenocaulon, Stenanthium, Veratrum, Toxicoscordion, Trillium, Xerophyllum, Zigadenus.
    [Show full text]
  • C:\Fish\Eastern Sand Darter Sa.Wpd
    EASTERN SAND DARTER STATUS ASSESSMENT Prepared by: David Grandmaison and Joseph Mayasich Natural Resources Research Institute University of Minnesota 5013 Miller Trunk Highway Duluth, MN 55811-1442 and David Etnier Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Tennessee 569 Dabney Hall Knoxville, TN 37996-1610 Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 3 1 Federal Drive Fort Snelling, MN 55111 January 2004 NRRI Technical Report No. NRRI/TR-2003/40 DISCLAIMER This document is a compilation of biological data and a description of past, present, and likely future threats to the eastern sand darter, Ammocrypta pellucida (Agassiz). It does not represent a decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on whether this taxon should be designated as a candidate species for listing as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act. That decision will be made by the Service after reviewing this document; other relevant biological and threat data not included herein; and all relevant laws, regulations, and policies. The result of the decision will be posted on the Service's Region 3 Web site (refer to: http://midwest.fws.gov/eco_serv/endangrd/lists/concern.html). If designated as a candidate species, the taxon will subsequently be added to the Service's candidate species list that is periodically published in the Federal Register and posted on the World Wide Web (refer to: http://endangered.fws.gov/wildlife.html). Even if the taxon does not warrant candidate status it should benefit from the conservation recommendations that are contained in this document. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS DISCLAIMER...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Information on the NCWRC's Scientific Council of Fishes Rare
    A Summary of the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina Submitted by Bryn H. Tracy North Carolina Division of Water Resources North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Raleigh, NC On behalf of the NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes November 01, 2014 Bigeye Jumprock, Scartomyzon (Moxostoma) ariommum, State Threatened Photograph by Noel Burkhead and Robert Jenkins, courtesy of the Virginia Division of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Southeastern Fishes Council (http://www.sefishescouncil.org/). Table of Contents Page Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 3 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes In North Carolina ........... 4 Summaries from the 2010 Reevaluation of Status Listings for Jeopardized Freshwater Fishes in North Carolina .......................................................................................................................... 12 Recent Activities of NCWRC’s Scientific Council of Fishes .................................................. 13 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part I, Ohio Lamprey .............................................. 14 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part II, “Atlantic” Highfin Carpsucker ...................... 17 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part III, Tennessee Darter ...................................... 20 North Carolina’s Imperiled Fish Fauna, Part
    [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]
  • Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    1 Justin Augustine (CA Bar No. 235561) Jaclyn Lopez (CA Bar No. 258589) 2 Center for Biological Diversity 351 California Street, Suite 600 3 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 436-9682 4 Fax: (415) 436-9683 [email protected] 5 [email protected] 6 Collette L. Adkins Giese (MN Bar No. 035059X)* Center for Biological Diversity 8640 Coral Sea Street Northeast 7 Minneapolis, MN 55449-5600 Tel: (651) 955-3821 8 Fax: (415) 436-9683 [email protected] 9 Michael W. Graf (CA Bar No. 136172) 10 Law Offices 227 Behrens Street 11 El Cerrito, CA 94530 Tel: (510) 525-7222 12 Fax: (510) 525-1208 [email protected] 13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and 14 Pesticide Action Network North America *Seeking admission pro hac vice 15 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 19 20 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL ) 21 DIVERSITY, a non-profit organization; and ) Case No.__________________ PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK ) 22 NORTH AMERICA, a non-profit ) organization; ) 23 ) Plaintiffs, ) COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY 24 ) AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF v. ) 25 ) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ) 26 AGENCY; and LISA JACKSON, ) Administrator, U.S. EPA; ) 27 ) Defendants. ) 28 _____________________________________ ) Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 1 1 INTRODUCTION 2 1. This action challenges the failure of Defendants Environmental Protection Agency and 3 Lisa Jackson, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, (collectively “EPA”) to consult with the 4 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) and National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) 5 (collectively “Service”) pursuant to Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), 16 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Community Responses to the Removal of Lonicera Maackii from an Urban Woodland Park
    University of Louisville ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository Electronic Theses and Dissertations 12-2016 Plant community responses to the removal of Lonicera maackii from an urban woodland park. Elihu H. Levine University of Louisville Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/etd Part of the Forest Biology Commons Recommended Citation Levine, Elihu H., "Plant community responses to the removal of Lonicera maackii from an urban woodland park." (2016). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 2613. https://doi.org/10.18297/etd/2613 This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. This title appears here courtesy of the author, who has retained all other copyrights. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PLANT COMMUNITY RESPONSES TO THE REMOVAL OF LONICERA MAACKII FROM AN URBAN WOODLAND PARK By Elihu H. Levine B. A., Earlham College, 2005 A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Louisville In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Biology Department of Biology University of Louisville Louisville, Kentucky December 2016 PLANT COMMUNITY RESPONSES TO THE REMOVAL OF LONICERA MAACKII FROM AN URBAN WOODLAND PARK By Elihu H. Levine B.A., Earlham College, 2005 A Thesis Approved on November 16, 2016 By the following Thesis Committee: __________________________ Dr. Margaret Carreiro, Director __________________________ Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Plant List Index: Trees & Shrubs Pg
    2020 Plant List Index: Trees & Shrubs pg. 2-7 Perennials pg. 7-13 Grasses pg. 14 Ferns pg. 14-15 Vines pg. 15 Hours: May 1 – June 30: Tues.- Sat. 10 am - 6 pm Sun.11 am - 5 pm 3351 State Route 37 West www.sciotogardens.com On Mondays by appointment Delaware, OH 43015 Phone/fax: 740-363-8264 Email: [email protected] Sustainable, earth-friendly growth and maintenance practices: Real Soil = Real Difference. All plants are container-grown in a blend of local soil and compost. Plants are grown outside year-round. They are always in step with the seasons. Minimal pruning ensures a well-rooted, healthy plant. Use degradableRoot Pouch andcontainers. recycled containers to reduce waste. Use of controlled-release fertilizers minimizes leaching into the environment. Our primary focus is on native plants. However, non-invasive exotics are an equally important part of the choices we offer you. There is great creative opportunity using natives in combination with exotics. Adding more native plants into our landscapes provides food and habitat for wildlife and connections to larger natural areas. AdditionalAdditional species species may may be be available. available. Email Email oror call for currentcurrent availability, availability, sizes, sizes, and and prices. prices. «BOT_NAME» «BOT_NAME»Wetland Indicator Status—This is listed in parentheses after the common name when a status is known. All species «COM_NAM» «COM_NAM» «DESCRIP»have not been evaluated. The indicator code is helpful in evaluating«DESCRIP» the appropriate habitat for a
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
    Tuesday, August 9, 2005 Part III Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Roswell springsnail, Koster’s springsnail, Noel’s amphipod, and Pecos assiminea as Endangered With Critical Habitat; Final Rule VerDate jul<14>2003 18:26 Aug 08, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM 09AUR2 46304 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: in coastal brackish waters or along tropical and temperate seacoasts Background Fish and Wildlife Service worldwide (Taylor 1987). Inland species It is our intent to discuss only those of the genus Assiminea are known from 50 CFR Part 17 topics directly relevant to this final around the world, and in North America listing determination. For more RIN 1018–AI15 they occur in California (Death Valley information on the four invertebrates, National Monument), Utah, New Endangered and Threatened Wildlife refer to the February 12, 2002, proposed Mexico, Texas (Pecos and Reeves and Plants; Listing Roswell rule (67 FR 6459). However, some of Counties), and Mexico (Bolso´n de springsnail, Koster’s springsnail, this information is discussed in our Cuatro Cı´enegas). Noel’s amphipod, and Pecos analyses below, such as the summary of The Roswell springsnail and Koster’s assiminea as Endangered With Critical factors affecting the species. springsnail are aquatic species. These Habitat Springsnails snails have lifespans of 9 to 15 months and reproduce several times during the AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, The Permian Basin of the spring through fall breeding season Interior.
    [Show full text]
  • Redescription of Marstonia Comalensis (Pilsbry & Ferriss, 1906), a Poorly Known and Possibly Threatened Freshwater Gastropod from the Edwards Plateau Region (Texas)
    A peer-reviewed open-access journal ZooKeys Redescription77: 1–16 (2011) of Marstonia comalensis (Pilsbry & Ferriss, 1906), a poorly known and... 1 doi: 10.3897/zookeys.77.935 RESEARCH ARTICLE www.zookeys.org Launched to accelerate biodiversity research Redescription of Marstonia comalensis (Pilsbry & Ferriss, 1906), a poorly known and possibly threatened freshwater gastropod from the Edwards Plateau region (Texas) Robert Hershler1, Hsiu-Ping Liu2 1 Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, D.C. 20013- 7012, USA 2 Department of Biology, Metropolitan State College of Denver, Denver, CO 80217, USA Corresponding author : Robert Hershler ( [email protected] ) Academic editor: Anatoly Schileyko | Received 2 June 2010 | Accepted 13 January 2011 | Published 26 January 2011 Citation: Hershler R, Liu H-P (2011) Redescription of Marstonia comalensis (Pilsbry & Ferriss, 1906), a poorly known and possibly threatened freshwater gastropod from the Edwards Plateau region (Texas). ZooKeys 77 : 1 – 16 . doi: 10.3897/ zookeys.77.935 Abstract Marstonia comalensis, a poorly known nymphophiline gastropod (originally described from Comal Creek, Texas) that has often been confused with Cincinnatia integra, is re-described and the generic placement of this species, which was recently allocated to Marstonia based on unpublished evidence, is confi rmed by anatomical study. Marstonia comalensis is a large congener having an ovate-conic, openly umbilicate shell and penis having a short fi lament and oblique, squarish lobe bearing a narrow gland along its distal edge. It is well diff erentiated morphologically from congeners having similar shells and penes and is also geneti- cally divergent relative to those congeners that have been sequenced (mtCOI divergence 3.0–8.5%).
    [Show full text]
  • September 24, 2018
    September 24, 2018 Sent via Federal eRulemaking Portal to: http://www.regulations.gov Docket Nos. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0006 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0007 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0009 Bridget Fahey Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041-3808 [email protected] Craig Aubrey Chief, Division of Environmental Review Ecological Services Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041 [email protected] Samuel D. Rauch, III National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 [email protected] Re: Proposed Revisions of Endangered Species Act Regulations Dear Mr. Aubrey, Ms. Fahey, and Mr. Rauch: The Southern Environmental Law Center (“SELC”) submits the following comments in opposition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s and National Marine Fisheries Service’s proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act’s implementing regulations.1 We submit these comments on behalf of 57 organizations working to protect the natural resources of the 1 Revision of the Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,174 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17); Revision of Regulations for Interagency Cooperation, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,178 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 402); Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,193 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]