DOCSLIB.ORG

12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Astragalus Hamiltonii

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Astragalus Hamiltonii Vol. 76 Wednesday, No. 36 February 23, 2011 Part IV Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Astragalus hamiltonii, Penstemon flowersii, Eriogonum soredium, Lepidium ostleri, and Trifolium friscanum as Endangered or Threatened; Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:17 Feb 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\23FER4.SGM 23FER4 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4 10166 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FWS–R6–ES–2010–0087. Supporting endangered or threatened. The petition documentation we used in preparing included the five plant species Fish and Wildlife Service this finding is available for public addressed in this finding. The petition inspection, by appointment, during incorporated all analysis, references, 50 CFR Part 17 normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and documentation provided by Docket No. [FWS–R6–ES–2010–0087; MO and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological NatureServe in its online database at 92210–0–008] Services Field Office, 2369 West Orton http://www.natureserve.org/. The Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, UT document clearly identified itself as a Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 84119. Please submit any new petition and included the petitioners’ and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a information, materials, comments, or identification information, as required Petition To List Astragalus hamiltonii, questions concerning this finding to the in 50 CFR 424.14(a). We sent a letter to Penstemon flowersii, Eriogonum above address. the petitioners, dated August 24, 2007, soredium, Lepidium ostleri, and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: acknowledging receipt of the petition Trifolium friscanum as Endangered or Larry Crist, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and stating that, based on preliminary Threatened and Wildlife Service, Utah Ecological review, we found no compelling Services Field Office, 2369 West Orton evidence to support an emergency AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Circle, Suite 50, West Valley City, UT listing for any of the species covered by Interior. 84119; by telephone at 801–975–3330; the petition. ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition or by facsimile at 801–975–3331mailto:. On March 19, 2008, WildEarth finding. If you use a telecommunications device Guardians filed a complaint (1:08–CV– 472–CKK) indicating that the Service SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and for the deaf (TDD), please call the failed to comply with its mandatory Wildlife Service (Service), announce a Federal Information Relay Service duty to make a preliminary 90-day 12-month finding on a petition to list (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. finding on their two multiple species Astragalus hamiltonii (Hamilton SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: petitions—one for mountain-prairie milkvetch), Penstemon flowersii Background species and one for southwest species. (Flowers penstemon), Eriogonum On June 18, 2008, we received a soredium (Frisco buckwheat), Lepidium Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the ESA of 1973, petition from WildEarth Guardians, ostleri (Ostler’s peppergrass), and as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), dated June 12, 2008, to emergency list Trifolium friscanum (Frisco clover) as requires that, for any petition to revise 32 species under the Administrative threatened or endangered under the the Federal Lists of Endangered and Procedure Act and the ESA. Of those 32 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), Threatened Wildlife and Plants that species, 11 were included in the July 24, as amended. After review of all contains substantial scientific or 2007, petition to be listed on a available scientific and commercial commercial information that listing a nonemergency basis. Although the ESA information, we find that listing A. species may be warranted, we make a does not provide for a petition process hamiltonii and P. flowersii is not finding within 12 months of the date of for an interested person to seek to have warranted at this time. However, we ask receipt of the petition. In this finding, a species emergency listed, section the public to submit to us new we will determine that the petitioned 4(b)(7) of the ESA authorizes the Service information that becomes available action is: (a) Not warranted, (b) to issue emergency regulations to concerning the threats to A. hamiltonii warranted, or (c) warranted, but the temporarily list a species. In a letter and P. flowersii or their habitat at any immediate proposal of a regulation dated July 25, 2008, we stated that the time. We find that listing E. soredium, implementing the petitioned action is information provided in both the 2007 L. ostleri, and T. friscanum as precluded by other pending proposals to and 2008 petitions and in our files did threatened or endangered is warranted. determine whether species are not indicate that an emergency situation However, currently listing E. soredium, threatened or endangered, and existed for any of the 11 species. L. ostleri, and T. friscanum is precluded expeditious progress is being made to by higher priority actions to amend the add or remove qualified species from On February 5, 2009 (74 FR 6122), we Federal Lists of Endangered and the Federal Lists of Endangered and published a 90-day finding on 165 Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section species from the petition to list 206 publication of this 12-month petition 4(b)(3)(C) of the ESA requires that we species in the mountain-prairie region finding, we will add E. soredium, L. treat a petition for which the requested of the United States as endangered or ostleri, and T. friscanum to our action is found to be warranted but threatened under the ESA. We found candidate species list. We will develop precluded as though resubmitted on the that the petition did not present proposed rules to list E. soredium, L. date of such finding, that is, requiring a substantial scientific or commercial ostleri, and T. friscanum as our subsequent finding to be made within information indicating that listing was priorities allow. We will make 12 months. We must publish these 12- warranted for these species and, determinations on critical habitat during month findings in the Federal Register. therefore, did not initiate further status reviews in response to the petition. Two development of the proposed listing Previous Federal Actions rules. In the interim period, we will additional species were reviewed in a address the status of the candidate taxa On July 30, 2007, we received a concurrent 90-day finding and again, we through our annual Candidate Notice of petition dated July 24, 2007, from Forest found that the petition did not present Review. Guardians (now WildEarth Guardians), substantial scientific or commercial requesting that the Service: (1) Consider information indicating that listing was DATES: The finding announced in this all full species in our Mountain Prairie warranted for these species. Therefore document was made on February 23, Region ranked as G1 or G1G2 by the we did not consider these two species 2011. organization NatureServe, except those further. For the remaining 39 species, ADDRESSES: This finding is available on that are currently listed, proposed for we deferred our findings until a later the Internet at http:// listing, or candidates for listing; and date. One species of the 39 remaining www.regulations.gov at Docket Number (2) list each species as either species, Sphaeralcea gierischii (Gierisch VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:48 Feb 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\23FER4.SGM 23FER4 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES4 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 10167 mallow), was already a candidate Species Information—Astragalus The Utah Natural Heritage Program species for listing; therefore, 38 species hamiltonii (UNHP) designates 11 element occurrences for Astragalus hamiltonii remained for consideration. On March Taxonomy and Species Description 13, 2009, the Service and WildEarth (UNHP 2010a, entire). Element Guardians filed a stipulated settlement Astragalus hamiltonii is a bushy occurrences are the specific locations, or in the District of Columbia Court, perennial plant in the bean family sites, where plants are documented. agreeing that the Service would submit (Fabaceae) that can grow up to 24 inches Distinct element occurrences are to the Federal Register a finding as to (in) (60 centimeters (cm)) tall (Welsh et identified if there is either 0.6 mi (1 km) whether WildEarth Guardians’ petition al. 2003, p. 374). It has several sparsely of unsuitable habitat or 1.2 mi (2 km) of presented substantial information leafed stems, with three to five unoccupied, suitable habitat separating indicating that the petitioned action (sometimes seven) leaflets per leaf, each them (NatureServe 2004, p. 14). 0.8 to 1.6 in (2 to 4 cm) long and 0.2 may be warranted for 38 mountain- Astragalus hamiltonii element to 0.4 in (5 to 10 millimeters (mm)) wide occurrences are based on collections of prairie species by August 9, 2009 (Heil and Melton 1995a, p. 6). The herbarium specimens. Two of the (WildEarth Guardians vs. Salazar 2009, terminal leaflet (at the tip of the leaf) is element occurrences identified by the case 1:08–CV–472–CKK). typically the largest leaflet (NatureServe UNHP were from Colorado and the On August 18, 2009, we published a 2009a, p. 3). In May and June, a single southeast corner of the Uinta Basin, but notice of 90-day finding (74 FR 41649) A. hamiltonii plant will produce many we believe these locations are likely on 38 species from the petition to list flowering stalks, with each stalk bearing A. lonchocarpus, based on leaf 206 species in the mountain-prairie 7 to 30 cream-colored flowers (Welsh et characteristics and geographic region of the United States as al.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Big Hole River Fluvial Arctic Grayling
    FLUVIAL ARCTIC GRAYLING MONITORING REPORT 2003 James Magee and Peter Lamothe Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Dillon, Montana Submitted To: Fluvial Arctic Grayling Workgroup And Beaverhead National Forest Bureau of Land Management Montana Chapter, American Fisheries Society Montana Council, Trout Unlimited Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service June 2004 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The following individuals and organizations contributed valuable assistance to the project in 2003. Scott Lula, Greg Gibbons, Zachary Byram, Tracy Elam, Tim Mosolf, and Dick Oswald of Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (FWP), provided able field assistance. Ken Staigmiller (FWP) collected samples for disease testing. Ken McDonald (FWP), provided administrative support, chaired the Fluvial Arctic Grayling Workgroup, reviewed progress reports and assisted funding efforts. Bob Snyder provided support as Native Species Coordinator. Dick Oswald (FWP) provided technical advice and expertise. Bruce Rich (FWP) provided direction as regional fisheries supervisor. Jim Brammer, Dennis Havig, Dan Downing, and Chris Riley (USFS) assisted with funding, provided housing for FWP technicians, and assisted with fieldwork. Bill Krise, and Ron Zitzow, Matt Toner, and the staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Bozeman Fish Technology Center maintained the brood reserve stock and transported grayling to the upper Ruby River. Jack Boyce, Mark Kornick and Jim Drissell, and crew of Big Springs Hatchery assisted with egg takes at Axolotl and Green Hollow II brood lakes, and transported eyed grayling eggs for RSI use in the upper Ruby River and to Bluewater State Fish Hatchery for rearing reaches. Gary Shaver, Bob Braund, and Dave Ellis from Bluewater State Hatchery raised and transported grayling to the Ruby River and the Missouri Headwaters restoration reaches.
    [Show full text]
  • Likely to Have Habitat Within Iras That ALLOW Road
    Item 3a - Sensitive Species National Master List By Region and Species Group Not likely to have habitat within IRAs Not likely to have Federal Likely to have habitat that DO NOT ALLOW habitat within IRAs Candidate within IRAs that DO Likely to have habitat road (re)construction that ALLOW road Forest Service Species Under NOT ALLOW road within IRAs that ALLOW but could be (re)construction but Species Scientific Name Common Name Species Group Region ESA (re)construction? road (re)construction? affected? could be affected? Bufo boreas boreas Boreal Western Toad Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Plethodon vandykei idahoensis Coeur D'Alene Salamander Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Ammodramus bairdii Baird's Sparrow Bird 1 No No Yes No No Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit Bird 1 No No Yes No No Centrocercus urophasianus Sage Grouse Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Gavia immer Common Loon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin Duck Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Oreortyx pictus Mountain Quail Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides albolarvatus White-Headed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides arcticus Black-Backed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing
    [Show full text]
  • Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Montana Arctic
    Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Montana Arctic Grayling Restoration August 2007 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING among: MONTANA FISH, WILDLIFE & PARKS (FWP) U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM) U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS) U.S. FOREST SERVICE (USFS) MONTANA COUNCIL TROUT UNLIMITED (TU) MONTANA CHAPTER AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY (AFS) YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK (YNP) MONTANA ARCTIC GRAYLING RECOVERY PROGRAM (AGRP) USDA NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS) MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION (DNRC) concerning MONTANA ARCTIC GRAYLING RESTORATION BACKGROUND Montana’s Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus is a unique native species that comprises an important component of Montana’s history and natural heritage. Fluvial (river dwelling) Arctic grayling were once widespread in the Missouri River drainage, but currently wild grayling persist only in the Big Hole River, representing approximately 4% of their native range in Montana. Native lacustrine/adfluvial populations historically distributed in the Red Rock drainage and possibly the Big Hole drainage have also been reduced in abundance and distribution. Arctic grayling have a long history of being petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Most recently (in April 2007) the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) determined that listing of Arctic grayling in Montana under ESA was not warranted because it does not constitute a distinct population segment as defined by the ESA. On May 15th 2007, the Center for Biological Diversity announced its 60-day Intent to Sue the USFWS regarding the recent grayling decision. The Montana Arctic Grayling Recovery Program (AGRP) was formed in 1987 following declines in the Big Hole River Arctic grayling population, and over concerns for the Red Rock population.
    [Show full text]
  • December 2012 Number 1
    Calochortiana December 2012 Number 1 December 2012 Number 1 CONTENTS Proceedings of the Fifth South- western Rare and Endangered Plant Conference Calochortiana, a new publication of the Utah Native Plant Society . 3 The Fifth Southwestern Rare and En- dangered Plant Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 2009 . 3 Abstracts of presentations and posters not submitted for the proceedings . 4 Southwestern cienegas: Rare habitats for endangered wetland plants. Robert Sivinski . 17 A new look at ranking plant rarity for conservation purposes, with an em- phasis on the flora of the American Southwest. John R. Spence . 25 The contribution of Cedar Breaks Na- tional Monument to the conservation of vascular plant diversity in Utah. Walter Fertig and Douglas N. Rey- nolds . 35 Studying the seed bank dynamics of rare plants. Susan Meyer . 46 East meets west: Rare desert Alliums in Arizona. John L. Anderson . 56 Calochortus nuttallii (Sego lily), Spatial patterns of endemic plant spe- state flower of Utah. By Kaye cies of the Colorado Plateau. Crystal Thorne. Krause . 63 Continued on page 2 Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights Reserved. Utah Native Plant Society Utah Native Plant Society, PO Box 520041, Salt Lake Copyright 2012 Utah Native Plant Society. All Rights City, Utah, 84152-0041. www.unps.org Reserved. Calochortiana is a publication of the Utah Native Plant Society, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organi- Editor: Walter Fertig ([email protected]), zation dedicated to conserving and promoting steward- Editorial Committee: Walter Fertig, Mindy Wheeler, ship of our native plants. Leila Shultz, and Susan Meyer CONTENTS, continued Biogeography of rare plants of the Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Nevada.
    [Show full text]
  • Beaver County, Utah Resource Management Plan
    BEAVER COUNTY, UTAH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN Beaver County Commissioners Michael F. Dalton, Chair Mark S. Whitney Tammy Pearson Planning & Zoning Commission Darrel Davis, Chairman Kyle Blackner, Administrator Von Christiansen, Attorney Jamie Kelsey, Secretary Steve Kinross Mike Riley Walter Schofield Kolby Blackner Drew Coombs Don Noyes Public Lands Keven Whicker, Public Lands Administrator County Staff Scott Albrecht, Michelle Evans, Tracy McMullin, Heidi Eyre Adopted June 6, 2017 (ordinance 2017-03) Amended December 17, 2019 (ordinance 2019-06) i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... v LEGAL BASIS FOR COUNTY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANNING .......................... ix SOCIAL-ECONOMIC LINKAGES ............................................................................................. xi CURRENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SETTING .............................................................. xv DESIRED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SETTING .............................................................. xvii 1. LAND USE ............................................................................................................................. 1 2. ENERGY, MINING, MINERAL & GEOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................... 9 2.1 Mining and Mineral & Geological Resources .................................................................. 9 2.2 Energy Resources ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Native Fish Conservation
    Yellowstone SScience Native Fish Conservation @ JOSH UDESEN Native Trout on the Rise he waters of Yellowstone National Park are among the most pristine on Earth. Here at the headwaters of the Missouri and Snake rivers, the park’s incredibly productive streams and lakes support an abundance of fish. Following the last Tglacial period 8,000-10,000 years ago, 12 species/subspecies of fish recolonized the park. These fish, including the iconic cutthroat trout, adapted and evolved to become specialists in the Yellowstone environment, underpinning a natural food web that includes magnificent animals: ospreys, bald eagles, river otters, black bears, and grizzly bears all feed upon cutthroat trout. When the park was established in 1872, early naturalists noted that about half of the waters were fishless, mostly because of waterfalls which precluded upstream movement of recolonizing fishes. Later, during a period of increasing popularity of the Yellowstone sport fishery, the newly established U.S. Fish Commission began to extensively stock the park’s waters with non-natives, including brown, brook, rainbow, and lake trout. Done more than a century ago as an attempt to increase an- gling opportunities, these actions had unintended consequences. Non-native fish caused serious negative impacts on native fish populations in some watersheds, and altered the parks natural ecology, particularly at Yellowstone Lake. It took a great deal of effort over many decades to alter our native fisheries. It will take a great deal more work to restore them. As Aldo Leopold once said, “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic com- munity.
    [Show full text]
  • Population Viability of Arctic Grayling in the Gibbon River, Yellowstone National Park
    North American Journal of Fisheries Management 30:1582–1590, 2010 [Article] Ó Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 2010 DOI: 10.1577/M10-083.1 Population Viability of Arctic Grayling in the Gibbon River, Yellowstone National Park 1 AMBER C. STEED* Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit and Department of Ecology, Montana State University, Post Office Box 173460, Bozeman, Montana 59717, USA ALEXANDER V. ZALE U.S. Geological Survey, Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, and Department of Ecology, Montana State University, Post Office Box 173460, Bozeman, Montana 59717, USA TODD M. KOEL Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Program, Yellowstone Center for Resources, Post Office Box 168, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming 82190, USA STEVEN T. KALINOWSKI Department of Ecology, Montana State University, Post Office Box 172460, Bozeman, Montana 59717, USA Abstract.—The fluvial Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus is restricted to less than 5% of its native range in the contiguous United States and was relisted as a category 3 candidate species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act in 2010. Although fluvial Arctic grayling of the lower Gibbon River, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming, were considered to have been extirpated by 1935, anglers and biologists have continued to report catching low numbers of Arctic grayling in the river. Our goal was to determine whether a viable population of fluvial Arctic grayling persisted in the Gibbon River or whether the fish caught in the river were downstream emigrants from lacustrine populations in headwater lakes. We addressed this goal by determining relative abundances, sources, and evidence for successful spawning of Arctic grayling in the Gibbon River.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 14 CSKT Sensitive Species and Heritage Program Ranks for Species in the Flathead Subbasin
    Appendix 14 CSKT Sensitive Species and Heritage Program Ranks for Species in the Flathead Subbasin Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) Sensitive Terrestrial Species List The tribes and state classify 39 terrestrial, vertebrate wildlife species in the subbasin as sensitive (table xx). All are considered sensitive due to low populations, threats to their habitats, or highly restricted distributions. These species do not necessarily have legal protection but are considered sensitive to human activities and attention to their habitat and population needs may be warranted during the planning of resource management activities. The status of many of these species is not known because there have been few population or habitat studies. Table 1. CSKT sensitive terrestrial species Amphibians Boreal toad Tailed frog Birds Common loon Common tern American white pelican Forster’s tern Black-crowned night-heron Black tern White-faced ibis Yellow-billed cuckoo Trumpeter swan Flammulated owl Harlequin duck Burrowing owl Bald eagle Great gray owl Northern goshawk Boreal owl Ferruginous hawk Black swift Peregrine falcon Black-backed woodpecker Columbian sharp-tailed grouse Loggerhead shrike Black-necked stilt Baird’s sparrow Franklin’s gull Le conte’s sparrow Caspian tern Mammals Townsend’s big-eared bat Woodland caribou Northern bog lemming Wolverine Gray wolf Fisher Grizzly bear River Otter Lynx Montana Natural Heritage Program Ranks Species have been evaluated and ranked on the basis of their global (range-wide) status, and their Montana-wide status, using the standardized ranking system of the Natural Heritage Network (NatureServe 2003). Species on the list may be common elsewhere but rare in Montana because they are on the margin of their range.
    [Show full text]
  • An Evaluation of the Reintroduction of Fluvial Arctic Grayling Into the Upper
    An evaluation of the reintroduction of fluvial Arctic grayling into the upper Ruby River by Bradley William Liermann A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Biological Sciences Montana State University © Copyright by Bradley William Liermann (2001) Abstract: This study was conducted to assess the survival, movement and growth of fluvial Arctic grayling reintroduced into the upper Ruby River as part of a program to reestablish populations within their native range in Montana. Numbers and ages of fish planted were 29,808 age 0 in 1997, 9,804 age 1 in 1998, and 7,349 age 1 in 1999, distributed among three areas over a 20.2 km reach. Of the 9,804 age 1 fish planted in 1998, 3,750 were given wire tags while all age 1 fish reintroduced in 1999 were given wire tags. Wire tagging locations were varied by planting section to assess post-stocking movement. Electrofishing mark-recapture surveys were conducted at four primary sites and one pass catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) surveys at six secondary sites in September and October each year and at three primary sites the following April. Recaptured grayling were tested for the presence of wire tags, counted, measured, and weighed, and normative brown and rainbow trout were counted. Movements of recaptured fish were assessed by comparing capture and release sites through wire tag recaptures, by operating a weir trap located about 13 km below the lowest planting site, and by a survey of angler catches. Habitat parameters were measured at seven of the same primary and secondary survey sites in 1998 and 1999, including length, wetted width, and average depth of pools, runs, and riffles.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix F3.5 Vegetation Resources
    Appendix F3.5 Vegetation Resources Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement BLM June 2011 Contents Table F3.5-1 Wildfire Frequency and Succession Information for Vegetation Communities Common in the ROW Figure F3.5-1 Fire Regime Condition Classes in the Study Area Fire Regime Condition Class Attributes Weed Species Known to Occur Within the Study Area Table F3.5-2 Noxious Weed Species Documented in ROW Areas, Groundwater Development Areas and Associated Hydrologic Basins Risk Assessment for Noxious and Invasive Weeds: Clark, Lincoln and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project – Right of Way for Main Pipeline Table F3.5-3 Cactus and Yucca Species Inventoried Within the ROW Table F3.5-4 Special Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring Within the Project Area Culturally Significant Plants and Animals Lists • Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation • Ely Shoshone Culturally Sensitive Plants • The Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah Figure F3.5-2 No Action - Cumulative Projected Drawdown Greater Than 10’ Phreatophytes, Springs and Streams Figure F3.5-3 Proposed Action - Cumulative Projected Drawdown Greater Than 10’ Phreatophytes, Springs and Streams Figure F3.5-4 Alternative A - Cumulative Projected Drawdown Greater Than 10’ Phreatophytes, Springs and Streams Figure F3.5-5 Alternative B - Cumulative Projected Drawdown Greater Than 10’ Phreatophytes, Springs and Streams Figure F3.5-6 Alternative C - Cumulative Projected Drawdown Greater Than 10’ Phreatophytes,
    [Show full text]
  • Montana Statewide Fisheries Management Program and Guide
    2019-2027 Montana Statewide Fisheries Management Program and Guide THE OUTSIDE IS IN US ALL d>K&KEdEd^ ^ddt/&/^,Z/^DE'DEdWZK'ZDE'h/WZd/͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͘ ϰ /EdZKhd/KEEWhZWK^͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͘͘ ϰ DKEdE͛^&/^,Z/^Z^KhZ^͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙ ϱ &/^,Z/^DE'DEdWZK'ZD͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙ ϭϭ Yhd/,/ddWZK'ZD͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͘ ϯϯ tdZZZd/KEE^^WZK'ZD͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͘ ϰϱ Yhd//Es^/s^W/^WZK'ZD͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙ ϱϮ ^ddt/&/^,Z/^DE'DEdWZK'ZDE'h/WZd//͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙ ϱϲ <KKdE/Z/sZZ/E'͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙ ϱϵ ^Khd,&KZ<&>d,Z/sZZ/E'͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙ ϳϵ ^tEZ/sZZ/E'͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͘͘ ϴϱ &>d,Z/sZZ/E'͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͘ ϵϱ hWWZ>Z<&KZ<Z/sZZ/E'͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙ ϭϬϱ >Z<&KZ<Z/sZ&>/EdͬZK<Z/E'͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙ ϭϭϯ ><&KKdZ/sZZ/E'͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͘͘ ϭϮϵ /ddZZKKdZ/sZZ/E'͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͘ ϭϰϬ D/>>Z<&KZ<Z/sZZ/E'͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͘ ϭϰϵ >KtZ>Z<&KZ<Z/sZZ/E'͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͘͘ ϭϱϵ ZZK<Z/sZZ/E'͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͘ ϭϳϲ ZhzZ/sZZ/E'͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͘ ϭϴϰ sZ,Z/sZZ/E'͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͘ ϭϵϬ /',K>Z/sZZ/E'͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙ ϭϵϱ Kh>ZZ/sZZ/E'͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͘͘ ϮϬϯ :&&Z^KEZ/sZZ/E'͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͘͘ ϮϬϳ D/^KEZ/sZZ/E'͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͘ ϮϭϮ '>>d/EZ/sZZ/E'͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͘ Ϯϭϴ hWWZD/^^KhZ/Z/sZZ/E'͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙ ϮϮϰ D/^^KhZ/Z/sZʹZKZEZ/E'͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͘ Ϯϯϲ 2 ^D/d,Z/sZZ/E'͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͘
    [Show full text]
  • Montana's State Wildlife Action Plan 2015
    MONTANA’S STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN MONTANA FISH, WILDLIFE & PARKS 2015 The mission of Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) is to provide for the stewardship of the fish, wildlife, parks, and recreational resources of Montana, while contributing to the quality of life for present and future generations. To carry out its mission, FWP strives to provide and support fiscally responsible programs that conserve, enhance, and protect Montana’s 1) aquatic ecotypes, habitats, and species; 2) terrestrial ecotypes, habitats, and species; and 3) important cultural and recreational resources. This document should be cited as Montana’s State Wildlife Action Plan. 2015. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, 1420 East Sixth Avenue, Helena, MT 59620. 441 pp. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Montana’s first State Wildlife Action Plan (SWAP), the Comprehensive Fish and Wildlife Conservation Strategy (CFWCS), was approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2006. Since then, many conservation partners have used the plan to support their conservation work and to seek additional funding to continue their work. For Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP), State Wildlife Grant (SWG) dollars have helped implement the strategy by supporting conservation efforts for many different species and habitats. This revision details implemented actions since 2006 (Appendix C). This SWAP identifies community types, Focal Areas, and species in Montana with significant issues that warrant conservation attention. The plan is not meant to be an FWP plan, but a plan to guide conservation throughout Montana. One hundred and twenty-eight Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) are identified in this revision. Forty-seven of these are identified as being in most critical conservation need.
    [Show full text]