DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Technical Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

APPENDIX B – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES APPENDIX B1 – BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix B1 – Biological Technical Report 1-1 1.1 Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards ......................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 Federal Laws .................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1.2 State Laws ...................................................................................................... 1-3 1.1.2.1 Arizona ............................................................................................ 1-3 1.1.2.2 New Mexico .................................................................................... 1-3 1.1.3 Regulations and Regional Plans..................................................................... 1-4 1.2 Study Area ................................................................................................................. 1-4 1.3 Land Status ................................................................................................................ 1-4 1.4 Regional Geological Setting ...................................................................................... 1-4 1.5 Existing Environment ................................................................................................ 1-5 1.5.1 Climate ........................................................................................................... 1-5 1.6 Vegetation .................................................................................................................. 1-6 1.6.1 Biomes ........................................................................................................... 1-6 1.7 Special-Status Species ............................................................................................. 1-10 1.7.1 Review Methodology ................................................................................... 1-10 1.8 Special-Status Species ............................................................................................. 1-77 1.8.1 Special-Status Species with Potential to Occur within the Project Area of Influence .................................................................................................. 1-77 1.8.1.1 Mammals....................................................................................... 1-77 1.8.1.2 Birds ............................................................................................ 1-120 1.8.1.3 Amphibians ................................................................................. 1-205 1.8.1.4 Reptiles ....................................................................................... 1-212 1.8.1.5 Fish .............................................................................................. 1-239 1.8.1.6 Invertebrates ................................................................................ 1-253 1.8.1.7 Plants ........................................................................................... 1-277 1.9 References.............................................................................................................. 1-300 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Special-Status Species that were Evaluated for Potential Occurrence within the Study Area and Project Area of Influence ............................................................... 1-11 SunZia Southwest Transmission Project i Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Resource Management Plan Amendments This page intentionally left blank. SunZia Southwest Transmission Project ii Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Resource Management Plan Amendments APPENDIX B1 – BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT 1.1 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS 1.1.1 Federal Laws Federal legislation and policy applicable to biological resources within the SunZia Southwest Transmission Project area of influence includes the: National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC § 4321, et seq., 40 CFR § 1500.1, et seq.) Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 460 et seq.), as amended Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703 et seq.) Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668) Sikes Act (16 USC §670g, et seq.) Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 USC §662, et seq.) State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program Federal Land Policy Management Act (43 USC §1701) Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 ([Clean Water Act] 33 USC §1251 et seq.) Bureau of Land Management Policy 6840 (Special Status Species Management) Executive Order 13112 (Invasive Species) The National Environmental Policy Act requires the federal government to assess the environmental impacts of most major federal actions, which include actions undertaken (1) on federal land, (2) by a federal agency, (3) with federal funds, or (4) where the federal government will be issuing a permit. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) authorizes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to protect plant and wildlife species determined to be in danger of extinction, and the habitats on which these species depend. The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that they do not carry out, fund, or authorize actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. Critical habitat, which includes areas essential to the conservation and recovery of listed species, may be designated and receives additional protection from federal actions. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects more than 800 migratory bird species by making it illegal to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird. Each year, the USFWS Migratory Bird Program compiles proposed and final regulations to authorize migratory bird hunting seasons, which are typically managed by state game and fish agencies. All native birds occurring within the Project area are protected under the MBTA, except members of the families Phasianidae (turkeys and grouse) and Odontophoridae (New World quail) (USFWS 2005a). The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) prohibits any form of possession or take of Bald Eagles, Golden Eagles, or their eggs, feathers, or any other parts. Certain exceptions for Native American cultural uses apply (1994 Memorandum [59 FR 22953, April 29, 1994]). SunZia Southwest Transmission Project B1-1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Resource Management Plan Amendments The Sikes Act requires federal land management agencies to coordinate with state wildlife agencies in the development of comprehensive plans for wildlife conservation on public lands. Where not in conflict with other land uses, these plans may permit hunting and fishing to occur on federal land in accordance with state regulations, may allow cooperative habitat improvement, and may regulate off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. The Sikes Act also requires that the Department of Defense develop conservation plans for military reservations with significant natural resources. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires consultation with the USFWS and state fish and wildlife agencies where the "waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or licensed to be impounded, diverted...or otherwise controlled or modified" by any agency under a Federal permit or license. Consultation is to be undertaken for the purpose of "preventing loss of and damage to wildlife resources." The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program provides federal funding for state conservation actions, in part for proactive work to reduce the need to list species under the ESA. States that receive the funding develop a State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP), which assesses Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) within that state. These may include species already listed under the ESA, species with ranges restricted to that state or region, or those where the state is an important component of the species’ range. Conditions of the state’s habitat elements are also assessed. The Federal Land Policy Management Act requires that the public lands be managed in a manner “that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use; and that federal land management agencies provide meaningful public involvement with state and local agencies on land use decisions”. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires compliance with state regulatory agencies responsible for Section 402 permits, which in Arizona, are administered by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) under authority of the Environmental Protection Agency. Projects may also require an Arizona Pollution Discharge Elimination System (AZPDES) and/or a Stormwater Runoff permit from the ADEQ. The New Mexico Environment Department Groundwater Pollution Prevention Section (GWPPS) of the Ground Water Quality Bureau administers, reviews, and approves ground water Discharge Permits for discharges that have the potential to impact ground water quality pursuant to Subparts III and V of the Water Quality Control Commission (WQCC) regulations (20.6.2 New Mexico Administrative Code). Executive Order 13112 requires that federal agencies prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species, detect and respond rapidly to control such species, monitor invasive species populations, and restore native species and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded. In addition, the order requires that a federal agency
Recommended publications
  • Invertebrate Distribution and Diversity Assessment at the U. S. Army Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site a Report to the U

    Invertebrate Distribution and Diversity Assessment at the U. S. Army Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site a Report to the U

    Invertebrate Distribution and Diversity Assessment at the U. S. Army Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site A report to the U. S. Army and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service G. J. Michels, Jr., J. L. Newton, H. L. Lindon, and J. A. Brazille Texas AgriLife Research 2301 Experiment Station Road Bushland, TX 79012 2008 Report Introductory Notes The invertebrate survey in 2008 presented an interesting challenge. Extremely dry conditions prevailed throughout most of the adult activity period for the invertebrates and grass fires occurred several times throughout the summer. By visual assessment, plant resources were scarce compared to last year, with few green plants and almost no flowering plants. Eight habitats and nine sites continued to be sampled in 2008. The Ponderosa pine/ yellow indiangrass site was removed from the study after the low numbers of species and individuals collected there in 2007. All other sites from the 2007 survey were included in the 2008 survey. We also discontinued the collection of Coccinellidae in the 2008 survey, as only 98 individuals from four species were collected in 2007. Pitfall and malaise trapping were continued in the same way as the 2007 survey. Sweep net sampling was discontinued to allow time for Asilidae and Orthoptera timed surveys consisting of direct collection of individuals with a net. These surveys were conducted in the same way as the time constrained butterfly (Papilionidea and Hesperoidea) surveys, with 15-minute intervals for each taxanomic group. This was sucessful when individuals were present, but the dry summer made it difficult to assess the utility of these techniques because of overall low abundance of insects.
  • Spur-Throated Grasshoppers of the Canadian Prairies and Northern Great Plains

    Spur-Throated Grasshoppers of the Canadian Prairies and Northern Great Plains

    16 Spur-throated grasshoppers of the Canadian Prairies and Northern Great Plains Dan L. Johnson Research Scientist, Grassland Insect Ecology, Lethbridge Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Box 3000, Lethbridge, AB T1J 4B1, [email protected] The spur-throated grasshoppers have become the most prominent grasshoppers of North Ameri- can grasslands, not by calling attention to them- selves by singing in the vegetation (stridulating) like the slant-faced grasshoppers, or by crackling on the wing (crepitating) like the band-winged grasshoppers, but by virtue of their sheer num- bers, activities and diversity. Almost all of the spur-throated grasshoppers in North America are members of the subfamily Melanoplinae. The sta- tus of Melanoplinae is somewhat similar in South America, where the melanopline Dichroplus takes the dominant role that the genus Melanoplus pated, and hiding in the valleys?) scourge that holds in North America (Cigliano et al. 2000). wiped out so much of mid-western agriculture in The biogeographic relationships are analysed by the 1870’s. Chapco et al. (2001). The grasshoppers are charac- terized by a spiny bump on the prosternum be- Approximately 40 species of grasshoppers in tween the front legs, which would be the position the subfamily Melanoplinae (mainly Tribe of the throat if they had one. This characteristic is Melanoplini) can be found on the Canadian grass- easy to use; I know elementary school children lands, depending on weather and other factors af- who can catch a grasshopper, turn it over for a fecting movement and abundance. The following look and say “melanopline” before grabbing the notes provide a brief look at representative next.
  • Courtship and Oviposition Patterns of Two Agathymus (Megathymidae)

    Courtship and Oviposition Patterns of Two Agathymus (Megathymidae)

    Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society 39(3). 1985. 171-176 COURTSHIP AND OVIPOSITION PATTERNS OF TWO AGATHYMUS (MEGATHYMIDAE) DON B. STALLINGS AND VIOLA N. T. STALLINGS P.O. Box 106, 616 W. Central, Caldwell, Kansas 67022 AND J. R. TURNER AND BEULAH R. TURNER 2 South Boyd, Caldwell, Kansas 67022 ABSTRACT. Males of Agathymus estelleae take courtship sentry positions near ten­ eral virgin females long before the females are ready to mate. Males of Agathymus mariae are territorial and pursue virgin females that approach their territories. Ovipo­ sition patterns of the two species are very similar. Females alight on or near the plants to oviposit and do not drop ova in flight. Few detailed observations of the courtship and oviposition of the skipper butterflies in natural environments have been published. For the family Megathymidae Freeman (1951), Roever (1965) (and see Toliver, 1968) described mating and oviposition of some Southwestern U.S. Agathymus, and over a hundred years ago (1876) Riley published an excellent paper on the life history of Megathymus yuccae (Bois­ duval & LeConte) which included data on oviposition of the female; otherwise, only the scantiest comments have been made. C. L. Rem­ ington (pers. comm.) and others tell us that there is a significant pos­ sibility that the Hesperioidea are less closely related to the true but­ terflies (Papilionoidea) than to certain other Lepidoptera and even that the Megathymidae may not be phylogenetically linked to the Hesper­ iidae. For several years we have been making on-the-scene studies of these two aspects of megathymid behavior, both for their interest in understanding the whole ecology of these insects and for their possible reflection on higher relationships.
  • The Taxonomy of Utah Orthoptera

    The Taxonomy of Utah Orthoptera

    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 14 Number 3 – Number 4 Article 1 12-30-1954 The taxonomy of Utah Orthoptera Andrew H. Barnum Brigham Young University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Barnum, Andrew H. (1954) "The taxonomy of Utah Orthoptera," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 14 : No. 3 , Article 1. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol14/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. IMUS.COMP.ZSOL iU6 1 195^ The Great Basin Naturalist harvard Published by the HWIilIijM i Department of Zoology and Entomology Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah Volum e XIV DECEMBER 30, 1954 Nos. 3 & 4 THE TAXONOMY OF UTAH ORTHOPTERA^ ANDREW H. BARNUM- Grand Junction, Colorado INTRODUCTION During the years of 1950 to 1952 a study of the taxonomy and distribution of the Utah Orthoptera was made at the Brigham Young University by the author under the direction of Dr. Vasco M. Tan- ner. This resulted in a listing of the species found in the State. Taxonomic keys were made and compiled covering these species. Distributional notes where available were made with the brief des- criptions of the species. The work was based on the material in the entomological col- lection of the Brigham Young University, with additional records obtained from the collection of the Utah State Agricultural College.
  • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

    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.
  • Canyons & Caves

    Canyons & Caves

    Carlsbad Caverns National Park CANYONS & CAVES A Newsletter from the Resources Stewardship & Science Division ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Issue No. 36 Spring 2005 Looking south along a portion of the jagged escarpment edge in the park’s designated wilderness. (NPS Photo by Dale Pate) Edited by Dale L. Pate Proofreading: Paula Bauer TABLE OF CONTENTS RESOURCE NEWS Resource News 1 NEW CAVE – One more cave has been documented in the Researcher Investigating Giant Skippers (R. West) 2 backcountry bringing the total number in the park to 111. Carlsbad Cavern Off-trail Structures (Paul Burger) 3 CCNP Type Specimens (Renée West) 4 SEASONAL BIOTECH Kristin Dorman-Johnson is back on 1939 Caverns Park Ranger Takes Plunge (B. Hoff) 5 board until October 1. She will continue working on the Resource Questions & Answers (Dale Pate) 6 Barbary sheep project. What’s Up with the Weather? (Kelly Fuhrmann) 7 All issues (thanks to Kelly Thomas and Bridget Litten) can be downloaded as BAT RESEARCHER Nick Hristov will continue his work on a PDF file from the park website - http://www.nps.gov/cave/pub-pdf.htm the advanced thermal infrared imaging census of Mexican free-tails beginning around April 10, throughout the summer Address: 3225 National Parks Highway, Carlsbad, New Mexico 88220 1 Canyons & Caves No. 36 -Spring 2005 and into October. Nick is a post-doctoral researcher at Boston Two giant skippers—the Carlsbad agave skipper and Viola’s University. bear giant skipper—were first found and scientifically described in CCNP in the 1950s. In the jargon of biology, SPRING BIRD COUNT MAY 14 – The Spring Bird Count CCNP is the ‘type locality’ for each subspecies—and will be this year will be Saturday, May 14, once again coinciding with forever recognized as such.
  • Coordinated Resource Management Plan

    Coordinated Resource Management Plan

    APPLETON-WHITTELL RESEARCH RANCH COORDINATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN The Research Ranch was established in 1968 by the Appleton family as an ecological field station to provide a large scale exclosure by which various land uses and actions in the Southwest could be evaluated. This role, as a control or reference area, creates challenges to land management actions. Each proposed action must be judged not only on the conservation outcome but also on the potential to have adverse impact on the research values for which the field station was established. Effective management for both conservation and research is only possible if all partners are informed and involved. The Research Ranch, approximately 8,000 acres, is a complicated partnership among land owners and federal land administrative agencies: Coronado National Forest (CNF), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Resolution Copper Mining Co. (RCM), The Research Ranch Foundation (TRRF), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and National Audubon Society (NAS or Audubon). NAS manages the facility via contractual agreements with each entity. The Research Ranch is a Center/Sanctuary of NAS, administered through the Audubon Arizona state office in Phoenix. Audubon’s strategic plan is to achieve conservation results on a broad scale by leveraging the NAS network and engaging diverse people; the Research Ranch is evaluated by NAS for its support of the following conservation concerns: Climate Change, Water, Working Lands and Bird Friendly Communities. This Coordinated Resource Management Plan (CRMP) constitutes all ownership along with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Arizona Game & Fish Department (AZGF) and US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). Planned practices to meet goals listed in this CRMP may not necessarily be implemented on all parcels.
  • Arizona Wildlife Notebook

    Arizona Wildlife Notebook

    ARIZONA WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ARIZONA WILDLIFE NOTEBOOK GARRY ROGERS Praise for Arizona Wildlife Notebook “Arizona Wildlife Notebook” by Garry Rogers is a comprehensive checklist of wildlife species existing in the State of Arizona. This notebook provides a brief description for each of eleven (11) groups of wildlife, conservation status of all extant species within that group in Arizona, alphabetical listing of species by common name, scientific names, and room for notes. “The Notebook is a statewide checklist, intended for use by wildlife watchers all over the state. As various individuals keep track of their personal observations of wildlife in their specific locality, the result will be a more selective checklist specific to that locale. Such information would be vitally useful to the State Wildlife Conservation Department, as well as to other local agencies and private wildlife watching groups. “This is a very well-documented snapshot of the status of wildlife species – from bugs to bats – in the State of Arizona. Much of it should be relevant to neighboring states, as well, with a bit of fine-tuning to accommodate additions and deletions to the list. “As a retired Wildlife Biologist, I have to say Rogers’ book is perhaps the simplest to understand, yet most comprehensive in terms of factual information, that I have ever had occasion to peruse. This book should become the default checklist for Arizona’s various state, federal and local conservation agencies, and the basis for developing accurate local inventories by private enthusiasts as well as public agencies. "Arizona Wildlife Notebook" provides a superb starting point for neighboring states who may wish to emulate Garry Rogers’ excellent handiwork.
  • Blue River Native Fish Restoration Project

    Blue River Native Fish Restoration Project

    Draft Environmental Assessment Blue River Native Fish Restoration Project Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Greenlee and Apache Counties, Arizona U. S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Phoenix Area Office July 2010 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Draft Environmental Assessment Blue River Native Fish Restoration Project Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Greenlee and Apache Counties, Arizona U. S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Phoenix Area Office July 2010 Draft Environmental Assessment Blue River Native Fish Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................ iv CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED .................................................................................. 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................... 2 1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION .......................................................................
  • Status of the Ichetucknee Siltsnail (Floridobia Mica) in Coffee Spring, Ichetucknee Springs State Park, Suwannee County, Florida, November 2015

    Status of the Ichetucknee Siltsnail (Floridobia Mica) in Coffee Spring, Ichetucknee Springs State Park, Suwannee County, Florida, November 2015

    Status of the Ichetucknee Siltsnail (Floridobia mica) in Coffee Spring, Ichetucknee Springs State Park, Suwannee County, Florida, November 2015 Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfwm/article-supplement/210502/pdf/10_3996052017-jfwm-042_s12 by guest on 27 September 2021 Gary L. Warren and Jennifer Bernatis, Ph.D. Freshwater Invertebrate Resource Assessment and Research Unit Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 7386 NW 71st Street Gainesville, FL 32653 [email protected] Status of the Ichetucknee Siltsnail (Floridobia mica) in Coffee Spring, Ichetucknee Springs State Park, Suwannee County, Florida, November 2015 Introduction The Ichetucknee Siltsnail (Floridobia mica, Figure 1) is one of eleven snails of the genus Floridobia endemic to single Florida spring systems and is the lone endemic siltsnail known to occur in the Suwannee River basin. Floridobia mica has been found only in Coffee Spring, a third magnitude spring that is one of several springs located within Ichetucknee Springs State Park, Columbia and Suwannee Counties, Florida. Since F. mica inhabits only one location, its Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfwm/article-supplement/210502/pdf/10_3996052017-jfwm-042_s12 by guest on 27 September 2021 population is vulnerable to extinction from any environmental perturbation that adversely affects habitat or water quality where it resides. F. mica has a global ranking of G1 (critically imperiled) in the Nature Serve ranking system and is categorized as S1 (critically imperiled) by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory. The snail is designated as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and was one of ten Florida siltsnail species petitioned for federal listing as threatened or endangered by the Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, Arizona, in their 2010 “megapetition” submitted to the U.S.
  • Biological Evaluation Proposed Arizona Trail Reroute Rosemont Copper Company

    Biological Evaluation Proposed Arizona Trail Reroute Rosemont Copper Company

    BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION ______________________________ PROPOSED ARIZONA TRAIL REROUTE NORTHEASTERN FOOTHILLS OF THE SANTA RITA MOUNTAINS PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA Prepared for: Rosemont Copper Company 2450 W. Ruthrauff Road, #180 Tucson, Arizona 85705 4001 East Paradise Falls Drive Tucson, Arizona 85712 (520) 206-9585 January 16, 2013 Project No. 1049.14 Biological Evaluation Proposed Arizona Trail Reroute Rosemont Copper Company TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 2. SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................... 2 3. METHODS ........................................................................................................................................... 3 4. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................. 4 4.1. Federally Listed Species Screening Analysis ............................................................................... 4 4.1.1. Lesser Long-nosed Bat ...................................................................................................... 4 4.1.2. Jaguar ................................................................................................................................ 4 4.1.3. Chiricahua Leopard Frog .................................................................................................
  • Sensitive Species That Are Not Listed Or Proposed Under the ESA Sorted By: Major Group, Subgroup, NS Sci

    Sensitive Species That Are Not Listed Or Proposed Under the ESA Sorted By: Major Group, Subgroup, NS Sci

    Forest Service Sensitive Species that are not listed or proposed under the ESA Sorted by: Major Group, Subgroup, NS Sci. Name; Legend: Page 94 REGION 10 REGION 1 REGION 2 REGION 3 REGION 4 REGION 5 REGION 6 REGION 8 REGION 9 ALTERNATE NATURESERVE PRIMARY MAJOR SUB- U.S. N U.S. 2005 NATURESERVE SCIENTIFIC NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME(S) COMMON NAME GROUP GROUP G RANK RANK ESA C 9 Anahita punctulata Southeastern Wandering Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G4 NNR 9 Apochthonius indianensis A Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1G2 N1N2 9 Apochthonius paucispinosus Dry Fork Valley Cave Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 Pseudoscorpion 9 Erebomaster flavescens A Cave Obligate Harvestman Invertebrate Arachnid G3G4 N3N4 9 Hesperochernes mirabilis Cave Psuedoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G5 N5 8 Hypochilus coylei A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G3? NNR 8 Hypochilus sheari A Lampshade Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2G3 NNR 9 Kleptochthonius griseomanus An Indiana Cave Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 8 Kleptochthonius orpheus Orpheus Cave Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 9 Kleptochthonius packardi A Cave Obligate Pseudoscorpion Invertebrate Arachnid G2G3 N2N3 9 Nesticus carteri A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid GNR NNR 8 Nesticus cooperi Lost Nantahala Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G1 N1 8 Nesticus crosbyi A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G1? NNR 8 Nesticus mimus A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2 NNR 8 Nesticus sheari A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2? NNR 8 Nesticus silvanus A Cave Spider Invertebrate Arachnid G2? NNR