DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix F3.5 Vegetation Resources

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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, Springs and Streams Figure F3.5-7 Alternative D - Cumulative Projected Drawdown Greater Than 10’ Phreatophytes, Springs and Streams Figure F3.5-8 Alternative E - Cumulative Projected Drawdown Greater Than 10’ Phreatophytes, Springs and Streams Appendix F3.5, Vegetation Resources Appendix F3.5, Page F3.5-i Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement BLM June 2011 Table F3.5-1 Wildfire Frequency and Succession Information for Vegetation Communities Common in the ROW Appendix F3.5, Vegetation Resources Appendix F3.5, Page F3.5-1 Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement June 2011 BLM Table F3.5-1 Wildfire Frequency and Succession Information for Vegetation Communities Common in the ROW Vegetation Community Current Fuel Descriptions Historic Fire Return Interval Succession Timeframe Great Basin Invaded grasslands and Invasive and noxious weed species 2 to 10 years Two to three years for grasses; early successional perennial plants forblands frequently dominate. Annual invasive dominate after few decades. Common postfire species include grasses and forbs, such as red brome and Mediterranean grass, cheatgrass and red brome. cheatgrass increase the fine fuel load, and alter the fire regime (Brown and Minnich 1986) Pinyon-juniper Sparse understory grasses due to high tree 100 to 500 years; Understory fires 300 years. Twenty five years or so grasses and forbs dominate, than woodlands densities limit the fine fuel load, and burn more frequently. shrubs increase, leading to the dominance of trees species (Miller and continuity of fuels. Woody fuel loads are Heyerdahl 2008). widespread, and contain highly flammable resin and pitch Semi-desert Fuel loads vary depending on site 10 years Two to three years for grasses. Due to increased spread of invasive grasslands/shrub steppe conditions. Native grass distribution keeps species, common postfire species include cheatgrass and red brome. fuel loads low, except where invasive Native perennial grasses well adapted to fire, regenerate easily. Bunch annual grasses dominate. Increased grass species and needle grasses are vulnerable to fire. precipitation can increase fuel loads. For areas with a shrub component, long lived, non-sprouting shrubs such as blackbrush (Coleogyne ramosissima), big sagebrush, and Wyoming sagebrush may take centuries to recolonize areas (Abella and Newton 2009), while sprouting shrubs such as rabbitbrush may recolonize quickly. Sagebrush Shrubland/ Fuel loads vary substantially depending on Varies depending on shrub Areas dominated by black sagebrush, big sagebrush, Wyoming Steppe site condition and history. Increased community. Wyoming big sagebrush, and bunchgrasses will take longer to recover if at all. precipitation can increase fine fuel loads. sagebrush 90 to 140 years; Basin big sagebrush 12 to 25 years. Greasewood will frequently resprout, while shadscale saltbush, winterfat, and fourwing saltbush will are moderate sprouters and will occasionally resprout following fire (BLM 2005). Timeline: 50+years. Woodland and Fuel loads are variable, depending on site 100 to 500 years (Depends on age Dependent on fire intensity and spread. Shrubland conditions such as accumulations of down of stands, younger stands burn and dead woody fuels, and fuel continuity more frequently). of vertical and horizontal gradients. Appendix F3.5, Page F3.5-2 Appendix F3.5, Vegetation Resources Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement BLM June 2011 Table F3.5-1 Wildfire Frequency and Succession Information for Vegetation Communities Common in the ROW Vegetation Community Current Fuel Descriptions Historic Fire Return Interval Succession Timeframe Mixed Salt Desert Fuel loads generally are low. 1,000 years. Two to three years for grasses; followed by early successional perennial Scrub plants and sprouting shrub species. Long lived, non-sprouting shrubs may take decades to recolonize areas (Abella and Newton 2009), Species such as spiny hopsage (Grayia spinosa) might not return at all (Abella and Newton 2009). Winterfat mortality is dependent on fire intensity, from fires, recovery is slow even for survivors, taking 9+ years (Parmenter 2008). Shadscale, fourwing saltbush will are moderate sprouters and will occasionally resprout following fire. Timeline: 100­ 200+ years. Greasewood Flat Variable. Variable. Dependent on adjacent Greasewood will frequently resprout following fires. Timeline 10-50 communities. years Mojave Desert Mixed Desert Scrub, Fuel loads generally are low, especially in 1000 years (very variable due to Two to three years for grasses; early successional perennial plants and Mixed Salt Desert areas where blackbrush is present. soils that range from wet to dominate after few decades. Common postfire species include Scrub. Typically fuel loading is low due to extremely droughty, and variable cheatgrass and red brome. Blackbrush may take centuries to recolonize limited understory. High moisture years annual precipitation amounts). areas (Abella and Newton 2009). Timeline: 30-90+ years. can produce greater understory which increases the fuel load. Creosotebush-White Fuel loads were historically low, but have Unknown (Fires were typically Creosote bush (Larrea tridentata) has heavy mortality from fires, and Bursage Desert Scrub increased with the spread of red brome infrequent, but with increases in does not appear to persist with increased fire frequency (Brown and into these areas. Red brome density is invasive species such as red brome, Minnich 1986, Lovich & Bainbridge 1999). Other desert shrubs may determined by precipitation amounts, with the fire interval has decreased recover, but native desert annuals may be lost due to increased high precipitation years increasing red dramatically.) colonization abilities of invasive annuals. (Brooks 2002). Annual seed brome densities. banks of bromus species can be reduced the first one to four years following the fire, while other annual invasive grass species can increase after fire (Brook 2002). Timeline: Grasses and forbs two to three years, shrubs 100 to + years, if at all (Cave and Patten 1984). Wetland/riparian areas Variable. Variable. Dependent on adjacent Greasewood, tamarisk, and willow will frequently resprout following communities. fires. Timeline 10-50 years Appendix F3.5, Vegetation Resources Appendix F3.5, Page F3.5-3 Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement June 2011 BLM Figure F3.5-1 Fire Regime Condition Classes in the Project Area Appendix F3.5, Page F3.5-4 Appendix F3.5, Vegetation Resources Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement ALT 93 93 Elko County White Pine County 278 178B 253 Tooele County 2 Callao 489 Juab County 185 Lander County 258 175 893 194 Juab County 892 93 Millard County Eureka 179 Austin 184 McGill Delta 50 486 195 257 174 Ely Opt. 1 Eureka County Eskdale 6 White Pine County 487 159 Nye County Baker Garrison 207 Opt. 2 894 318 15 Millard County 6 180 Beaver County 21 183 256 255 196 93 Opt. 3 Beaver County 201 Iron County Tonopah Nye County 172 202 Lincoln County 200 181 Pioche 375 208 171 199 198 Panaca Ga 203 C Goldfield 56 Caliente Iron County 318 204 120 Hiko Washington County 209 Opt. 4 182 317 93 Alamo Kane County 206 8 15 205 Nevada Utah Arizona Beatty 210 389 Lincoln County Mesquite Clark County 15 168 219 Indian Springs 95 218 220 217 216 Mohave ProjectCounty Components Pahrump 212 Las 215 Vegas Proposed Power Line Centerline Proposed Pipeline Centerline 515 Boulder 215 City Groundwater Development Area 93 Coconino Alternate Electrical County Californi Substation Site Inyo County 15 Alignment Option a SanBernardinoCounty Proposed Clark, Lincoln, and Natural Resources Region of Study Hydrographic Basins OR ID White Pine
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ANTC Environmental Assessment
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Environmental Assessment DOI-BLM-NV-B010-2013-0024-EA Telecommunication Facilities at Kingston, Dyer, and Hickison Summit July 2013 Applicant: Arizona Nevada Tower Corporation 6220 McLeod Drive Ste. 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89120 Battle Mountain District Bureau of Land Management 50 Bastian Road Battle Mountain, Nevada 89820 Table of Contents Page Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Background 1 1.3 Identifying Information 2 1.4 Location of Proposed Action 2 1.5 Preparing Office 2 1.6 Case File Numbers 2 1.7 Applicant 2 1.8 Proposed Action Summary 3 1.9 Conformance 3 1.10 Purpose & Need 3 1.11 Scoping, Public Involvement & Issues 4 Chapter 2 Proposed Action & Alternatives 11 2.1 Proposed Action 11 2.1.1 Best Management Practices 13 2.2 No Action Alternative 13 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 14 Chapter 3 Affected Environment & Environmental Consequences 15 3.1 Project Site Descriptions 15 3.2 Issues 16 3.2.1 Air Quality 18 3.2.1.1 Affected Environment 18 3.2.1.2 Environmental Consequences 18 3.2.2 Cultural/Historical Resources 18 3.2.2.1 Affected Environment 18 3.2.2.2 Environmental Consequences 18 3.2.3 Noxious Weeds/Invasive Non-native Plants 19 3.2.3.1 Affected Environment 19 3.2.3.2 Environmental Consequences 20 3.2.4 Native American Religious Concerns 20 3.2.4.1 Affected Environment 20 3.2.4.2 Environmental Consequences 20 3.2.5 Migratory Birds 21 3.2.5.1 Affected Environment 21 3.2.5.2 Environmental Consequences 22 3.2.6 Solid/Hazardous
    [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]
  • News Release
    NEWS RELEASE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Mountain-Prairie Region 134 Union Boulevard Lakewood, Colorado 80228 For Release on: August 18, 2009 Contact: Ann Carlson 303-236-4264 Diane Katzenberger 303-236-4578 Fish and Wildlife Service to Conduct Status Reviews for 29 Species Three of the species are found in the Service’s Pacific Region Following a review of a petition seeking to protect 206 species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that 29 of the petitioned species may warrant Federal protection. The Service will undertake a more thorough review of these species to determine whether to propose adding them to the Federal list of threatened and endangered wildlife and plants. Two of those species include the northern leatherside chub (Lepidomeda copei) and the longitudinal gland pyrg (Pyrgulopsis anguin). The Service also determined that the petition did not present substantial information that listing may be warranted for nine other species. One of those – the Sunnyside green-gentian (Frasera gypsicola) is found in Nevada. The 38 species addressed in this finding are found in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The list of the petitioned species can be found in the Federal Register notice published today or at the Service’s web site at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/endspp/news.htm. Among the species that may warrant federal protection are two found in the Service’s Pacific Region: the northern leatherside chub, a fish found in Idaho, and pale blue-eyed grass, a plant found in Oregon and Washington.
    [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]
  • Rare Plant Survey of San Juan Public Lands, Colorado
    Rare Plant Survey of San Juan Public Lands, Colorado 2005 Prepared by Colorado Natural Heritage Program 254 General Services Building Colorado State University Fort Collins CO 80523 Rare Plant Survey of San Juan Public Lands, Colorado 2005 Prepared by Peggy Lyon and Julia Hanson Colorado Natural Heritage Program 254 General Services Building Colorado State University Fort Collins CO 80523 December 2005 Cover: Imperiled (G1 and G2) plants of the San Juan Public Lands, top left to bottom right: Lesquerella pruinosa, Draba graminea, Cryptantha gypsophila, Machaeranthera coloradoensis, Astragalus naturitensis, Physaria pulvinata, Ipomopsis polyantha, Townsendia glabella, Townsendia rothrockii. Executive Summary This survey was a continuation of several years of rare plant survey on San Juan Public Lands. Funding for the project was provided by San Juan National Forest and the San Juan Resource Area of the Bureau of Land Management. Previous rare plant surveys on San Juan Public Lands by CNHP were conducted in conjunction with county wide surveys of La Plata, Archuleta, San Juan and San Miguel counties, with partial funding from Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO); and in 2004, public lands only in Dolores and Montezuma counties, funded entirely by the San Juan Public Lands. Funding for 2005 was again provided by San Juan Public Lands. The primary emphases for field work in 2005 were: 1. revisit and update information on rare plant occurrences of agency sensitive species in the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) database that were last observed prior to 2000, in order to have the most current information available for informing the revision of the Resource Management Plan for the San Juan Public Lands (BLM and San Juan National Forest); 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Current Tracking List
    Nevada Division of Natural Heritage Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 901 S. Stewart Street, Suite 5002, Carson City, Nevada 89701-5245 voice: (775) 684-2900 | fax: (775) 684-2909 | web: heritage.nv.gov At-Risk Plant and Animal Tracking List July 2021 The Nevada Division of Natural Heritage (NDNH) A separate list, the Plant and Animal Watch List, systematically curates information on Nevada's contains taxa that could become at-risk in the future. endangered, threatened, sensitive, rare, and at-risk plants and animals providing the most comprehensive Taxa on the At-Risk Plant and Animal Tracking List are source of information on Nevada’s imperiled organized by taxonomic group, and presented biodiversity. alphabetically by scientific name within each group. Currently, there are 639 Tracking List taxa: 285 plants, Nevada's health and economic well-being depend 209 invertebrates, 65 fishes, 9 amphibians, 7 reptiles, upon its biodiversity and wise land stewardship. This 27 birds, and 37 mammals. challenge increases as population and land-use pressures continue to grow. Nevada is among the top Documentation of population status, locations, or 10 states for both the diversity and the vulnerability of other updates or corrections for any of the taxa on its living heritage. With early planning and responsible this list are always welcome. Literature citations with development, economic growth and our biological taxonomic revisions and descriptions of new taxa are resources can coexist. NDNH is a central source for also appreciated. The Nevada Native Species Site information critical to achieving this balance. Survey Report form is available on our website under Management priorities for the state’s imperiled the Submit Data tab and is the preferred format for biodiversity are continually assessed, providing submitting information to NDNH.
    [Show full text]
  • Nye County Agenda Information Form
    NYE COUNTY AGENDA INFORMATION FORM Action Presentation 0 Presentation &Action Department: EDEN Category: Consent Agenda Item 1 Contact: Paula Elefante Phone: Continued from meeting of: I I Return to: EDEN ( Location: Pahrump 1 775-751-1923 Action requested: (Include what, with whom, when, where, why, how much ($)and terms) Approval of the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. Complete description of requested action: (Include, if applicable, background, impact, long-term commitment, existing county policy, future goals, obtained by competitive bid, accountability measures) This document was first prepared and approved by the board in 2002. Once this document is approved it will be submitted to the Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration for their review and approval. This was a total document rewrite. This document is a bi-county document serving both Esmeralda and Nye Counties that identifies a vision, goals and needs for all the communities within the two counties. Any information provided after the agenda is published or during the meeting of the Commissioners will require you to provide 20 copies: one for each Commissioner, one for the Clerk, one for the District Attorney, one for the Public and two for the County Manager. Contracts or documents requiring signature must be submitted with three original copies. I J Ex~enditureImpact by FY(s): (Provide oetai on Financial Form) No financial impact 1 Routing & Approval (sign &Date) 1. Dept Dale 1 6. Dale Approved Disapproved I Amended as follows: I Clerk of
    [Show full text]
  • Management Plan for the Great Basin National Heritage Area Approved April 30, 2013
    Management Plan for the Great Basin National Heritage Area Approved April 30, 2013 Prepared by the Great Basin Heritage Area Partnership Baker, Nevada i ii Great Basin National Heritage Area Management Plan September 23, 2011 Plans prepared previously by several National Heritage Areas provided inspiration for the framework and format for the Great Basin National Heritage Area Management Plan. National Park Service staff and documents provided guidance. We gratefully acknowledge these contributions. This Management Plan was made possible through funding provided by the National Park Service, the State of Nevada, the State of Utah and the generosity of local citizens. 2011 Great Basin National Heritage Area Disclaimer Restriction of Liability The Great Basin Heritage Area Partnership (GBHAP) and the authors of this document have made every reasonable effort to insur e accuracy and objectivity in preparing this plan. However, based on limitations of time, funding and references available, the parties involved make no claims, promises or guarantees about the absolute accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this document and expressly disclaim liability for errors and omissions in the contents of this plan. No warranty of any kind, implied, expressed or statutory, including but not limited to the warranties of non-infringement of third party rights, title, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, is given with respect to the contents of this document or its references. Reference in this document to any specific commercial products, processes, or services, or the use of any trade, firm or corporation name is for the inf ormation and convenience of the public, and does not constitute endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the GBHAP or the authors.
    [Show 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.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Departhient of the Interior 200? OCT
    @2/82 FS PAGE 3øi2@07 @S47 7757268111 CALIENTE United States Departhient of the Interior BUREAU Of LAND MANAGEMENT Ely Field Oftce I-1C33 Bo 33500 (702 N. tndstria Way) TAKE PRIDE. Ely. Nevada 893(11 -940$ INAMERICA http://www.hlm.gov/n’/sVeii.html RecelvQd In Reply Refer to: So. Nevada Field Offlc JUL 2 ‘ 200? 6840(P) (NV-045.07) OCT 122007 Las Vegas, 1W Memorandum To: Assistant field Supervisor, U.S. fish. an Wildlife Service, Southern Nevada. Fish and. Wildlife Office, Las Vegas, NV From: Field Manager. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Fly Fie)d Office, NV Subject: Fornal Section 7 Consultation and Request for Concurrence, Southwest intcrtie Project (SWIP) — Southern Portion The BLM Ely requests formal section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act on the proposcd $WIP— Southern Portion due tø possible adverse effects to the Mojave population of lesert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). The BLM Ely Field Office has prepared a BioJogical Assessment (BA) to update the original BA for the SWIP that was prepared in November, 1993, Please find attached a BA analyzing the potential Impacts of the project to Desert Tortoise. The BA includes analysis on potential impacts to the endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidon fratfli extirnus) and threatened Bald Eagle (Haliacetus leucocephalus) and a finding of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” for these two species. Thc BLM requests concuiTence with this finding. A discuss n of these species and their associated habitats is included in the attached BA. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Wildlife Biologist Alicia Styles at 775-726-8 128.
    [Show full text]
  • 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List
    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.
    [Show full text]
  • Us Fish and Wildlife Service Species
    U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SPECIES ASSESSMENT AND LISTING PRIORITY ASSIGNMENT FORM Scientific Name: Lepidium ostleri Common Name: Ostler's Peppergrass Lead region: Region 6 (Mountain-Prairie Region) Information current as of: 04/02/2014 Status/Action ___ Funding provided for a proposed rule. Assessment not updated. ___ Species Assessment - determined species did not meet the definition of the endangered or threatened under the Act and, therefore, was not elevated to the Candidate status. ___ New Candidate _X_ Continuing Candidate ___ Candidate Removal ___ Taxon is more abundant or widespread than previously believed or not subject to the degree of threats sufficient to warrant issuance of a proposed listing or continuance of candidate status ___ Taxon not subject to the degree of threats sufficient to warrant issuance of a proposed listing or continuance of candidate status due, in part or totally, to conservation efforts that remove or reduce the threats to the species ___ Range is no longer a U.S. territory ___ Insufficient information exists on biological vulnerability and threats to support listing ___ Taxon mistakenly included in past notice of review ___ Taxon does not meet the definition of "species" ___ Taxon believed to be extinct ___ Conservation efforts have removed or reduced threats ___ More abundant than believed, diminished threats, or threats eliminated. Petition Information ___ Non-Petitioned _X_ Petitioned - Date petition received: 07/30/2007 90-Day Positive:08/18/2009 12 Month Positive:02/23/2011 Did the Petition
    [Show full text]