DOCSLIB.ORG

SE States DRMP EIS VOL2.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SE States DRMP EIS VOL2.Pdf Mission Statement It is the mission of the Bureau of Land Management to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. BLM/ES/PL-14/001+1610 Cover Photos: Background – Meadowood Special Recreation Management Area, Fairfax County, Virginia. Foreground from top to bottom – Tidal Lagoon Overlook, Great Egret, Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse Outstanding Natural Area, Palm Beach County, Florida; Phosphate Operations, Polk County, Florida; Big Saline Bayou Special Recreation Management Area, Rapides Parish, Louisiana. Southeastern States DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Volume 2 of 3 United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Southeastern States Field Office September 2014 This page intentionally left blank Draft EIS Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1—PURPOSE AND NEED CHAPTER 2—ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER 3—AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 2 CHAPTER 4—ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES CHAPTER 5—CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION CHAPTER 6—LIST OF PREPARERS GLOSSARY ACRONYMS REFERENCES VOLUME 3 APPENDICES Southeastern States RMP i Table of Contents Draft EIS VOLUME 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 4 —ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .......................................................................................4-1 4.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Approach to the Analysis ................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.2 Types of Effects ................................................................................................................................ 4-2 4.1.3 Availability of Data and Incomplete Information ............................................................................. 4-2 4.1.4 Analysis Assumptions ...................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.2 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................................................... 4-4 4.2.1 Assumptions ..................................................................................................................................... 4-5 4.2.2 Alternative A (No Action Alternative) ............................................................................................. 4-5 4.2.3 Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) ............................................................................................. 4-14 4.2.4 Alternative C .................................................................................................................................. 4-14 4.2.5 Alternative D .................................................................................................................................. 4-14 4.3 SOIL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................. 4-15 4.3.1 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................... 4-15 4.3.2 Alternative A (No Action Alternative) ........................................................................................... 4-15 4.3.3 Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) ............................................................................................. 4-18 4.3.4 Alternative C .................................................................................................................................. 4-18 4.3.5 Alternative D .................................................................................................................................. 4-19 4.4 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................. 4-20 4.4.1 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................... 4-20 4.4.2 Alternative A (No Action Alternative) ........................................................................................... 4-20 4.4.3 Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) ............................................................................................. 4-24 4.4.4 Alternative C .................................................................................................................................. 4-26 4.4.5 Alternative D .................................................................................................................................. 4-26 4.5 VEGETATION ......................................................................................................................................... 4-28 4.5.1 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................... 4-28 4.5.2 Alternative A (No Action Alternative) ........................................................................................... 4-28 4.5.3 Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) ............................................................................................. 4-90 4.5.4 Alternative C .................................................................................................................................. 4-98 4.5.5 Alternative D ................................................................................................................................ 4-102 4.6 FISH AND WILDLIFE ........................................................................................................................... 4-107 4.6.1 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................. 4-107 4.6.2 Alternative A (No Action Alternative) ......................................................................................... 4-107 4.6.3 Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) ........................................................................................... 4-144 4.6.4 Alternative C ................................................................................................................................ 4-152 4.6.5 Alternative D ................................................................................................................................ 4-156 4.7 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ................................................................................................................. 4-162 4.7.1 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................. 4-163 4.7.2 Arkansas ....................................................................................................................................... 4-163 4.7.3 Florida .......................................................................................................................................... 4-191 4.7.4 Kentucky....................................................................................................................................... 4-244 4.7.5 Louisiana ...................................................................................................................................... 4-272 4.7.6 Tennessee ..................................................................................................................................... 4-290 4.7.7 Virginia ......................................................................................................................................... 4-301 4.8 WILDLAND FIRE .................................................................................................................................. 4-312 4.8.1 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................. 4-312 4.8.2 Alternative A (No Action Alternative) ......................................................................................... 4-312 4.8.3 Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) ........................................................................................... 4-313 4.8.4 Alternative C ................................................................................................................................ 4-314 4.8.5 Alternative D ................................................................................................................................ 4-314 4.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................... 4-316 4.9.1 Assumptions ................................................................................................................................. 4-316 4.9.2 Alternative A (No Action Alternative) ......................................................................................... 4-316 ii Southeastern States RMP Draft EIS Table of Contents 4.9.3 Alternative B (Preferred Alternative) ........................................................................................... 4-319 4.9.4 Alternative C ................................................................................................................................ 4-321 4.9.5 Alternative
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Missouri Bladderpod Rocky, Open Areas
    bladderpod were restricted to limestone glades and Missouri Bladderpod rocky, open areas. Encroachment of woody Physaria filiformis vegetation and introduced grasses such as tall fescue into these habitats, along with large fluctuations in bladderpod populations and urban Guidelines for Landowners development were the reasons for the concern and listing of this species. Using Conservation Practices Missouri Department of Conservation Common name ▪ Missouri Bladderpod Scientific name ▪ Physaria filiformis State status ▪ Endangered Federal status ▪ Threatened Ecology Missouri bladderpod is a small yellow-flowered plant Photo Credit: Missouri Department of Conservation in the mustard family found in southwest Missouri and in northern and western Arkansas. It gets its Recommendations name from the spherical fruits or "bladders" that Managing Missouri bladderpod requires protecting contain seeds. Missouri bladderpods live on and restoring glade communities. Promote land limestone glades and rocky outcroppings and can management activities that reduce woody be locally abundant in rocky pastures. Missouri vegetation and reduce competition from invasive bladderpod is a herbaceous, annual plant growing 4 plants. Areas adjacent to existing Missouri to 8 inches tall, producing numerous slender stems bladderpod sites should be managed in such a way from its base. Missouri bladderpods flower from as to prevent the introduction of nonnative species April to May, producing showy, 4-petaled, bright or possible degradation of the native plant yellow blossoms clustered at the tops of the stems. community. Protect glade habitat from ground Distinctive spherical fruiting “pods” form in mid-May disturbing activities such as highway construction and are located near the top of the stem. The seeds and urban development by avoiding glades for drop to the ground in late May and early June, lie these activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Docket No. FWS–HQ–NWRS–2019–0040; FXRS12610900000-190-FF09R20000]
    This document is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on 09/10/2019 and available online at https://federalregister.gov/d/2019-18054, and on govinfo.gov Billing Code 4333-15 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Parts 26, 32, 36, and 71 [Docket No. FWS–HQ–NWRS–2019–0040; FXRS12610900000-190-FF09R20000] RIN 1018-BD79 2019–2020 Station-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), open seven National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) that are currently closed to hunting and sport fishing. In addition, we expand hunting and sport fishing at 70 other NWRs, and add pertinent station-specific regulations for other NWRs that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing for the 2019–2020 season. We also formally open 15 units of the National Fish Hatchery System to hunting and sport fishing. We also add pertinent station- specific regulations that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing at these 15 National Fish Hatcheries (NFHs) for the 2019–2020 season. This rule includes global administrative updates to every NWR entry in our refuge- specific regulations and the reorganization of general public use regulations. We remove approximately 2,100 regulations that will have no impact on the administration of hunting and sport fishing within the National Wildlife Refuge System. We also simplify over 2,900 refuge- specific regulations to comply with a Presidential mandate to adhere to plain language standards 1 and to reduce the regulatory burden on the public.
    [Show full text]
  • 50 CFR Ch. I (10–1–15 Edition) § 32.44
    § 32.44 50 CFR Ch. I (10–1–15 Edition) 4. Deer check station dates, locations, and the field, including shot shells used for hunt- requirements are designated in the refuge ing wild turkey (see § 32.2(k)). brochure. Prior to leaving the refuge, you B. Upland Game Hunting. We allow upland must check all harvested deer at the nearest game hunting on designated areas of the ref- self-service check station following the post- uge in accordance with State regulations ed instructions. subject to the following conditions: 5. Hunters may possess and hunt from only 1. Condition A3 applies. one stand or blind. Hunters may place a deer 2. We allow upland game hunting on the stand or blind 48 hours prior to a hunt and 131-acre mainland unit of Boone’s Crossing must remove it within 48 hours after each with archery methods only. On Johnson Is- designated hunt with the exception of closed land, we allow hunting of game animals dur- areas where special regulations apply (see ing Statewide seasons using archery methods brochure). or shotguns using shot no larger than BB. 6. During designated muzzleloader hunts, C. Big Game Hunting. We allow hunting of we allow archery equipment and deer and turkey on designated areas of the muzzleloaders loaded with a single ball; we refuge in accordance with State regulations prohibit breech-loading firearms of any type. subject to the following conditions: 7. Limited draw hunts require a Limited 1. We prohibit the construction or use of Hunt Permit (name/address/phone number) permanent blinds, platforms, or ladders at assigned by random computer drawing.
    [Show full text]
  • VGP) Version 2/5/2009
    Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS (VGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), any owner or operator of a vessel being operated in a capacity as a means of transportation who: • Is eligible for permit coverage under Part 1.2; • If required by Part 1.5.1, submits a complete and accurate Notice of Intent (NOI) is authorized to discharge in accordance with the requirements of this permit. General effluent limits for all eligible vessels are given in Part 2. Further vessel class or type specific requirements are given in Part 5 for select vessels and apply in addition to any general effluent limits in Part 2. Specific requirements that apply in individual States and Indian Country Lands are found in Part 6. Definitions of permit-specific terms used in this permit are provided in Appendix A. This permit becomes effective on December 19, 2008 for all jurisdictions except Alaska and Hawaii. This permit and the authorization to discharge expire at midnight, December 19, 2013 i Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 William K. Honker, Acting Director Robert W. Varney, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1 6 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, Barbara A.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Implementation Report
    PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT Prepared by: The Conservation Fund with contributions from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Project Title Restoring a Legacy at Mingo National Wildlife Refuge V3 (V1 completed October 30, 2014; V2 completed April 8, 2015; V3 Version completed 26 November 2019) Date of Issue 03 2020 Project Location Puxico, Missouri, United States The Conservation Fund Kevin Harnish, Manager, Portfolio Analysis Project Proponent(s) [email protected] | 919.948.6152 77 Vilcom Center, Suite 340, Chapel Hill, NC, 27514 USA www.conservationfund.org Prepared By Kevin Harnish, Manager, Portfolio Analysis, The Conservation Fund Aster Global Environmental Solutions, Inc. Shawn McMahon, Lead Verification Body Verifier 3800 Clermont St. NW, North Lawrence, Ohio 44666 USA 904.626.6011 [email protected] Project Lifetime 01 March 2010 – 31 December 2110; 100 Years GHG Accounting Period 01 March 2010 – 31 December 2110; 100 Years Monitoring Period of 01 Nov 2014– 01 Nov 1 2019 this Report Validated 12 May 2010 History of CCB Status Verified 23 March 2015 The project achieved Gold Level validation by satisfying the Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits criteria set out in GL3.1. One globally threatened Gold Level Criteria species – the Indiana bat –occurs within the Project Zone. An Indiana bat maternity colony was found on the edge of one of the Go Zero Tracts within Mingo NWR. The Go Zero project has increased forest connectivity at Mingo NWR and improved and expanded Indiana bat habitat by increasing the amount of continuous vegetation in riparian zones. Table of Contents The page numbers of the table of contents below shall be updated upon completion of the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Release of the Gall Mite, Aceria Drabae
    United States Department of Field release of the gall mite, Agriculture Aceria drabae (Acari: Marketing and Regulatory Eriophyidae), for classical Programs biological control of hoary Animal and Plant Health Inspection cress (Lepidium draba L., Service Lepidium chalapense L., and Lepidium appelianum Al- Shehbaz) (Brassicaceae), in the contiguous United States. Environmental Assessment, January 2018 Field release of the gall mite, Aceria drabae (Acari: Eriophyidae), for classical biological control of hoary cress (Lepidium draba L., Lepidium chalapense L., and Lepidium appelianum Al-Shehbaz) (Brassicaceae), in the contiguous United States. Environmental Assessment, January 2018 Agency Contact: Colin D. Stewart, Assistant Director Pests, Pathogens, and Biocontrol Permits Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service U.S. Department of Agriculture 4700 River Rd., Unit 133 Riverdale, MD 20737 Non-Discrimination Policy The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action.
    [Show full text]
  • Learning Networks Field Guide
    LEARNING NETWORKS January 2015 FIELD GUIDE Fire Learning Network Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network Prescribed Fire Training Exchanges Scaling-up to Promote Ecosystem Resiliency Copyright 2015 The Nature Conservancy The Fire Learning Network is part of the “Promoting Ecosystem Resilience and Fire Adapted Communities Together: Collaborative Engagement, Collective Action and Co- Ownership of Fire” cooperative agreement among The Nature Conservancy, USDA Forest Service and agencies of the Department of the Interior (Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish & Wildlife Service, National Park Service). In addition to the network of landscape collaboratives, it includes prescribed fire training exchanges and targeted treatments under Scaling-up to Promote Ecosystem Resiliency. For more information, please visit www.conservationgateway.org/fln Network Contacts FLN Director Lynn Decker [email protected] (801) 320-0524 USDA Forest Service Tim Melchert [email protected] (208) 387-5512 Dept. of the Interior Richard Bahr [email protected] (208) 334-1550 The Fire Learning Network Team The Nature Conservancy Fire Team: Jeremy Bailey, Lynn Decker, Guy Duffner, Wendy Fulks, Blane Heumann, Mary Huffman, Heather Montanye, Liz Rank and Chris Topik. The FLN Field Guide is compiled and produced by Liz Rank ([email protected]). Thanks to the numerous landscape and community leaders and partners who provided text, photos and review for this document, and for the valuable work they do in the field. Photo Credits Front cover (top to bottom): Riley Bergseng, Coalition for the Upper South Platte, Robert B. Clontz/TNC; (center) Jeffrey Kane. This page: Jeffrey Kane. Back cover (left to right): Liz Rank/TNC, Katherine Medlock/TNC, Chris Topik/TNC, Mary Huffman/TNC.
    [Show full text]
  • Standardization and Quality Control in Data Collection and Assessment of Threatened Plant Species
    data Review Standardization and Quality Control in Data Collection and Assessment of Threatened Plant Species Lloyd W. Morrison 1,2,* and Craig C. Young 1 1 National Park Service, Heartland Inventory and Monitoring Program, 6424 W. Farm Road 182, Republic, MO 65738, USA; [email protected] 2 Department of Biology, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO 65897, USA * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +1-417-836-3119 Academic Editor: Martin M. Gossner Received: 10 May 2016; Accepted: 9 December 2016; Published: 14 December 2016 Abstract: Informative data collection is important in the identification and conservation of rare plant species. Data sets generated by many small-scale studies may be integrated into large, distributed databases, and statistical tools are being developed to extract meaningful information from such databases. A diversity of field methodologies may be employed across smaller studies, however, resulting in a lack of standardization and quality control, which makes integration more difficult. Here, we present a case study of the population-level monitoring of two threatened plant species with contrasting life history traits that require different field sampling methodologies: the limestone glade bladderpod, Physaria filiformis, and the western prairie fringed orchid, Plantanthera praeclara. Although different data collection methodologies are necessary for these species based on population sizes and plant morphology, the resulting data allow for similar inferences. Different sample designs may frequently be necessary for rare plant sampling, yet still provide comparable data. Various sources of uncertainty may be associated with data collection (e.g., random sampling error, methodological imprecision, observer error), and should always be quantified if possible and included in data sets, and described in metadata.
    [Show full text]
  • Return of Private Foundation OMB No 1545-0052 Form 990 -PF Or Section 4947 ( A)(1) Trust Treated As Private Foundation This Form Be Made Public
    Return of Private Foundation OMB No 1545-0052 Form 990 -PF or Section 4947 ( a)(1) Trust Treated as Private Foundation this form be made public. 2013 ► Do not enter Social Security numbers on as it may Revenuethe Treasury InternalInte Revenue Service ► Information about Form 990-PF and its separate instructions is at www. irs. gov/form990(^ f. For calendar y ear 2013 or tax y ear be g innin g , 2013 , and endin g 20 Name of foundation A Employer identification number Mon.Gantn Fund 43-6044736 Number and street (or P 0 box number tf mail is not delivered to street address) Room/suite B Telephone number (see instructions) 800 North Lindber g h Blvd. 314-694-4391 City or town, state or province , country, and ZIP or foreign postal code q C If exemption application is ► pending , check here • • • • • • St. Louis, Mo. 63167 G Check all that apply Initial return Initial return of a former public charity D 1 Foreign organizations , check here . ► Final return Amended return 2 Foreign organizations meeting the 85% test, check here and attach Address chang e Name chang e computation ► H Check type of organization X Section 501(c 3 exempt private foundation E If private foundation status was terminated Section 4947 (a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust Other taxable p rivate foundation under section 507 (b)(1)(A), check here . ► I Fair market value of all assets at J Accountin g method X Cash Accrual F If the foundation is in a 60-month termination under section 507(b )(1)(B), check here end of year (from Part ll, col (c), line Other ( specify) .
    [Show full text]
  • Refuge Update – November/December 2007, Volume 4, Number 6
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln RefugeUpdate (USFWS-NWRS) US Fish & Wildlife Service 11-2007 Refuge Update – November/December 2007, Volume 4, Number 6 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/refugeupdate Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons "Refuge Update – November/December 2007, Volume 4, Number 6" (2007). RefugeUpdate (USFWS- NWRS). 36. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/refugeupdate/36 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Fish & Wildlife Service at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in RefugeUpdate (USFWS- NWRS) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System Inside RefugeUpdate November/December 2007 Vol 4, No 6 Celebrating 20 Years of Science on the M/ V Tiglax, page 5 Kevin Bell is honored as Captain National Wildlife Refuges Return Economic of the largest ship operated by the National Wildlife Refuge System. Benefit Along with Wildlife Values Focus on…A River Runs Through It, pages 8-15 Rivers on refuges are managed for recreation, habitat restoration, water rights and sheer beauty. The Fight Against Giant Salvinia, page 18 Caddo Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Texas is fighting a weed that can travel three-quarters of a mile in 24 hours. Awards, page 21 From protecting the land to going “green,” awards recognize excellence. Ten New Refuge Friends Groups: • Columbia Gorge Refuge Stewards (Washington) • Friends of Deer Flat National The Refuge System generated almost $1.7 billion in economic return for regional economies in 2006, Wildlife Refuge (Idaho) including money spent on wildlife observation, birding and photography.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment
    Job Number 012318 Tier 3 Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 3 The Environmental Division reviewed the referenced project and has determined it falls within the definition of the Tier 3 Categorical Exclusion as defined by the ARDOT/FHWA Memorandum of Agreement on the processing of Categorical Exclusions. The following information is included for your review and, if acceptable, approval as the environmental documentation for this project. The proposed project would replace two bridges on Highway 7 over the Middle Fork of the Saline River in Garland County (Site 1) and Dry Run Creek in Perry County (Site 2), both within the boundary of the Ouachita National Forest. Total length of the project is approximately 0.5 mile. A project location map is enclosed. The existing roadway consists of two 11’ wide paved travel lanes with 2’ wide gravel shoulders at Site 1 and 2’ wide paved shoulders at Site 2. Existing right of way width averages 132’. Proposed improvements retain the two 11’ wide paved travel lanes, but increase the shoulder width to 6’ (2’ paved). The average proposed right of way width will be 187’ at Site 1 and 132’ at Site 2. Approximately 2.3 acres of additional permanent easement and 0.5 acre of temporary construction easement will be required for this project. To maintain traffic during construction, the Middle Fork Saline River bridge (Site 1) will be replaced using a temporary detour located 60’ east (downstream) of the existing bridge while the new bridge is constructed on the existing alignment. The Dry Run Creek bridge (Site 2) will be replaced approximately 80’ east (upstream) of the existing bridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Universidad Técnica Particular De Loja Área
    UNIVERSIDAD TÉCNICA PARTICULAR DE LOJA La Universidad Católica de Loja ÁREA BIOLÓGICA TITULACIÓN DE INGENIERO EN GESTIÓN AMBIENTAL Evaluación de la efectividad de manejo del Parque Nacional Joshua Tree TRABAJO DE FIN DE TITULACIÓN AUTOR: Moreira Ponce, Gloria Margarita DIRECTOR: López Rodríguez, Fausto Vinicio, Mgs. CENTRO UNIVERSITARIO PORTOVIEJO 2014 Esta versión digital, ha sido acreditada bajo la licencia Creative Commons 4.0, CC BY-NY-SA: Reconocimiento- No comercial-Compartir igual; la cual permite copiar, distribuir y comunicar públicamente la obra, mientras se reconozca la autoría original, no se utilice con fines comerciales y se permiten obras derivadas, siempre que mantenga la misma licencia al ser divulgada. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.es 2017 APROBACIÓN DEL TRABAJO DE FIN DE TITULACIÓN Mgs. FAUSTO VINICIO LÓPEZ RODRIGUEZ DOCENTE DE LA TITULACIÓN DE INGENIERIA EN GESTIÓN AMBIENTAL De mi consideración: El presente trabajo de fin de titulación: Evaluación de la Efectividad de Manejo del Parque Nacional Joshua Tree National Park, realizado por Moreira Ponce Gloria Margarita, ha sido orientado y revisado durante su ejecución, por cuanto se aprueba la presentación del mismo. Loja, Septiembre del 2014 f)……………………………… MSc. Fausto Vinicio López Rodríguez DIRECTOR DEL TRABAJO DE FIN DE TITULACIÓN ii DECLARACIÓN DE AUTORÍA Y CESIÓN DE DERECHOS “Yo, Moreira Ponce Gloria Margarita, declaro ser autor (a) del presente trabajo de fin de titulación: Evaluación de Efectividad de Manejo del Parque Nacional Joshua Tree National Park, de la Titulación de Ingeniero en Gestión Ambiental, siendo el Magister Fausto López director del trabajo de fin de titulación; y eximo expresamente a la Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja y a sus representantes legales de posibles reclamos o acciones legales.
    [Show full text]