DOCSLIB.ORG

Designation of Critical Habitat for the Fender's Blue Butterfly

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Designation of Critical Habitat for the Fender's Blue Butterfly Tuesday, October 31, 2006 Part II Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid’s lupine), and Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens (Willamette daisy); Final Rule VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:08 Oct 30, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\31OCR2.SGM 31OCR2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2 63862 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Role of Critical Habitat in Actual future consultations that analyze Practice of Administering and impacts to designated critical habitat, Fish and Wildlife Service Implementing the Act particularly those that appear to be Attention to and protection of habitat resulting in an adverse modification 50 CFR Part 17 is paramount to successful conservation determination. Such consultations will actions. The role that designation of be reviewed by the Regional Office prior RIN 1018–AT91 critical habitat plays in protecting to finalizing to ensure that an adequate habitat of listed species, however, is analysis has been conducted that is Endangered and Threatened Wildlife often misunderstood. As discussed in informed by the Director’s guidance. On the other hand, to the extent that and Plants; Designation of Critical more detail below in the discussion of designation of critical habitat provides Habitat for the Fender’s blue butterfly exclusions under ESA section 4(b)(2), protection, that protection can come at (Icaricia icarioides fenderi), Lupinus there are significant limitations on the significant social and economic cost. In sulphureus ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid’s regulatory effect of critical habitat addition, the mere administrative lupine), and Erigeron decumbens var. designation under ESA section 7(a)(2). decumbens (Willamette daisy) process of designating critical habitat is In brief, (1) designation provides expensive, time-consuming, and additional protection to habitat only AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, controversial. The current statutory where there is a Federal nexus; (2) the Interior. framework of critical habitat, combined protection is relevant only when, in the with past judicial interpretations of the ACTION: Final rule. absence of designation, destruction or statute, make critical habitat the subject adverse modification of the critical of excessive litigation. As a result, SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and habitat would in fact take place (in other critical habitat designations are driven Wildlife Service (Service), are words, other statutory or regulatory by litigation and courts rather than designating critical habitat for the protections, policies, or other factors biology, and made at a time and under Fender’s blue butterfly (Icaricia relevant to agency decision-making a time frame that limits our ability to icarioides fenderi), Lupinus sulphureus would not prevent the destruction or obtain and evaluate the scientific and ssp. kincaidii (Kincaid’s lupine), and adverse modification); and (3) other information required to make the Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens designation of critical habitat triggers designation most meaningful. (Willamette daisy) pursuant to the the prohibition of destruction or adverse In light of these circumstances, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as modification of that habitat, but it does Service believes that additional agency amended (Act). Approximately 3,010 not require specific actions to restore or discretion would allow our focus to acres (ac) (1,218 hectares (ha)) for improve habitat. return to those actions that provide the Fender’s blue butterfly in Benton, Lane, As of September 22, 2006, only 475 greatest benefit to the species most in Polk, and Yamhill Counties, Oregon; species, or 36 percent of the 1,310 listed need of protection. 585 ac (237 ha) for L. sulphureus ssp. species in the U.S. under the kincaidii in Benton, Lane, Polk, and jurisdiction of the Service, have Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Yamhill Counties, Oregon, and Lewis designated critical habitat. We address Designating Critical Habitat County, Washington; and 718 ac (291 the habitat needs of all 1,311 listed We have been inundated with ha) for E. decumbens var. decumbens in species through conservation lawsuits for our failure to designate Benton, Lane, Linn, Marion, and Polk mechanisms such as listing, section 7 critical habitat, and we face a growing Counties, Oregon, fall within the consultations, the Section 4 recovery number of lawsuits challenging critical boundaries of the critical habitat planning process, the Section 9 habitat determinations once they are designation. protective prohibitions of unauthorized made. These lawsuits have subjected the take, Section 6 funding to the States, the Service to an ever-increasing series of DATES: This rule becomes effective on Section 10 incidental take permit court orders and court-approved November 30, 2006. process, and cooperative, nonregulatory settlement agreements, compliance with ADDRESSES: Comments and materials efforts with private landowners. The which now consumes nearly the entire received, as well as supporting Service believes that it is these measures listing program budget. This leaves the documentation used in the preparation that may make the difference between Service with little ability to prioritize its of this final rule, will be available for extinction and survival for many activities to direct scarce listing public inspection, by appointment, species. resources to the listing program actions during normal business hours, at the In considering exclusions of areas with the most biologically urgent U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland originally proposed for designation, we species conservation needs. Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th evaluated the benefits of designation in The consequence of the critical Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266 light of Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. habitat litigation activity is that limited (telephone (503) 231–6179). The final United States Fish and Wildlife Service. listing funds are used to defend active rule, economic analysis, and map will In that case, the Ninth Circuit lawsuits, to respond to Notices of Intent also be available via the Internet at invalidated the Service’s regulation (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/ defining ‘‘destruction or adverse and to comply with the growing number ESA-Actions/WillValleyPage.asp. modification of critical habitat.’’ In of adverse court orders. As a result, response, on December 9, 2004, the listing petition responses, the Service’s FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Director issued guidance to be own proposals to list critically Kemper McMaster, Field Supervisor, considered in making section 7 adverse imperiled species, and final listing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland modification determinations. This determinations on existing proposals are Fish and Wildlife Office, 2600 SE 98th critical habitat designation does not use all significantly delayed. Ave., Suite 100, Portland, OR 97266 the invalidated regulation in our The accelerated schedules of court- (telephone 503/231–6179; facsimile consideration of the benefits of ordered designations have left the 503/231–6195). including areas in this final designation. Service with limited ability to provide SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Service will carefully manage for public participation or to ensure a VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:08 Oct 30, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31OCR2.SGM 31OCR2 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 210 / Tuesday, October 31, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 63863 defect-free rulemaking process before boundaries of some remnant prairie 1998b, pp. 2–7; Kaye in litt.a, p. 2). making decisions on listing and critical locations. Many of these associated species are habitat proposals, due to the risks Various descriptions of prairie considered indicators for upland prairie associated with noncompliance with habitats have been published over the habitat (Schultz et al. 2003, p. 65; judicially imposed deadlines. This in years and they usually vary in their Wilson et al. 2003, p. 79). turn fosters a second round of litigation division of communities and the The Fender’s blue butterfly habitat in which those who fear adverse dominant species present in each requirements include a larval host plant impacts from critical habitat community (Jackson 1996, p. 2). We (i.e., Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, designations challenge those describe two habitat types, wet prairie L. arbustus (spurred lupine), and L. designations. The cycle of litigation and upland prairie, and define these by albicaulis (sickle-keeled lupine), native appears endless, and is very expensive, describing the plant communities forbs for adult nectar sources, and thus diverting resources from reported co-occurring with the Fender’s native grasses that comprise short-grass conservation actions that may provide blue butterfly, Lupinus sulphureus ssp. upland prairies (Wilson et al. 1997, p. relatively more benefit to imperiled kincaidii, and Erigeron decumbens var. 3; Schultz 2001, p. 1008). These species. decumbens. requirements are considered essential to The costs resulting from the Upland prairie (including oak the survival and conservation of these designation include
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Leiberg's Fleabane, Erigeron Leibergii
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Leiberg’s Fleabane Erigeron leibergii in Canada DATA DEFICIENT 2016 COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC. 2016. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Leiberg’s Fleabane Erigeron leibergii in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. x + 22 pp. (http://www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=en&n=24F7211B-1). Production note: COSEWIC acknowledges Matt Fairbarns for writing the status report on Leiberg’s Fleabane, Erigeron leibergii, in Canada, prepared with the financial support of Environment & Climate Change Canada. This report was overseen and edited by Del Meidinger, Co-chair of the COSEWIC Vascular Plants Specialist Subcommittee. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment and Climate Change Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: 819-938-4125 Fax: 819-938-3984 E-mail: ec.cosepac-cosewic.ec@canada.ca http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Également disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur le Nom de l’espèce (Erigeron leibergii) au Canada. Cover illustration/photo: Leiberg’s Fleabane — Photo credit: Matt Fairbarns. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2016. Catalogue No. CW69-14/748-2017E-PDF ISBN 978-0-660-07805-2 COSEWIC Assessment Summary Assessment Summary – November 2016 Common name Leiberg’s Fleabane Scientific name Erigeron leibergii Status Data Deficient Reason for designation This perennial herb has only been collected from one site in south central British Columbia; field surveys suggest that it may have been lost from that site.
    [Show full text]
  • Improving Habitat Restoration for Native Pollinators in San Francisco Tyrha Delger Tdelger13@Gmail.Com
    The University of San Francisco USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center Master's Projects and Capstones Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects Spring 5-18-2018 Improving Habitat Restoration for Native Pollinators in San Francisco Tyrha Delger tdelger13@gmail.com Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone Recommended Citation Delger, Tyrha, "Improving Habitat Restoration for Native Pollinators in San Francisco" (2018). Master's Projects and Capstones. 739. https://repository.usfca.edu/capstone/739 This Project/Capstone is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, Capstones and Projects at USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Projects and Capstones by an authorized administrator of USF Scholarship: a digital repository @ Gleeson Library | Geschke Center. For more information, please contact repository@usfca.edu. This Master’s Project Improving Habitat Restoration for Native Pollinators in San Francisco by Tyrha Delger is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements or the degree of Master of Science in Environmental Management at the University of San Francisco Submitted: Received: ……………………………. …………………………….... Your Name Date Allison Luengen, Ph.D. Date Name: Tyrha Delger USF MSEM Master’s Project Spring 2018 Final Paper Table of Contents List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………………....1 List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………………..2 Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………….3
    [Show full text]
  • Species Account MISSION BLUE BUTTERFLY Icaricia Icarioides Missionensis
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office Species Account MISSION BLUE BUTTERFLY Icaricia icarioides missionensis CLASSIFICATION: Endangered Federal Register 41:22041; June 1, 1976 http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr99.pdf CRITICAL HABITAT: None designated RECOVERY PLAN: Final Recovery Plan for San Bruno Elfin and Mission Blue Butterflies. October 10, 1984 (This plan is now out of date. Contact us if you need a copy.) 5-YEAR REVIEW: Completed February 2010. No change recommended. www.fws.gov/ecos/ajax/docs/five_year_review/doc3216.pdf Mission Blue Butterfly (285 KB) David Wright, USFWS DESCRIPTION The mission blue ( Icaricia icarioides missionensis ) is a small, delicate butterfly in the Lycaenidae (gossamer-winged butterfly) family. Wingspan is about 2.5 to 3.6 centimeters. (1 to 1.5 inch). The upper wing surfaces of the male are iridescent blue and lavender with black margins fringed with long white hair-like scales. There are no spots on the upper surfaces of the wings. In males, the ventral surfaces of the wings are whitish with small circular gray spots in the submarginal areas and larger circular black spots located in post-median and submedian areas of the fore and hind wings. The body of the male is dark bluish brown. Females have dark brown upper wing surfaces marked with blue basal areas. The margins and wing fringe are similar to the male. Female underwings are stone gray with a dot pattern similar to the males'. The adult flight season extends from late March to early July, depending on the location and microclimatic conditions. Females lay eggs throughout the mating flight.
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin Autumn 2019; No
    The AMERICAN PEONY SOCIETY Bulletin Autumn 2019; No. 391 “All of the flowers of tomorrow are in the seeds of today.” –Indian Proverb Paeonia brownii seed. Photo courtesy of Lorē Sampson 'Lavender Grace' (R. G. Klehm 1998) THE AMERICAN PEONY SOCIETY MEMBERSHIP & THE APS BULLETIN (APS) is a nonprofit horticultural orga- All interested persons are invited to join nization incorporated as a membership and participate in APS activities. Dues corporation under the laws of the State are paid for the calendar year. Dues of Missouri. APS is organized exclu- received before August 25 are recorded sively for educational and scientific for the current year and members will purposes, and especially to promote, be sent all four issues of The Bulletin encourage and foster the development for that year (while supplies last). and improvement of the genus Paeo- Dues received between August 25 and nia and public interest therein. These November 25 will receive the December purposes are expressly limited so that issue of The Bulletin and all issues APS qualifies as an exempt organi- for the following year. Memberships OVER 350 GARDEN PEONY VARIETIES zation under section 501(c)(5) of the received after November 25 will be OVER 350 GARDEN PEONY VARIETIES Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or the recorded for the following year. Dues OVERWITH 350 WORLD-WIDEGARDEN PEONY DELIVERY VARIETIES corresponding provision of any future for a one-year, individual membership, WITH WORLD-WIDE DELIVERY Internal Revenue law. Donors may not with a US mailing address, are $25.00. WITH WORLD-WIDE DELIVERY deduct contributions to APS.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Kincaid's Lupine, a Federally-Listed Threatened Plant
    TECHNICAL NOTES U. S. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE Portland, Oregon September 2010 PLANT MATERIALS NO. 40 – Supplement D Introduction to Kincaid’s Lupine, a Federally-listed Threatened Plant, and a Photo Key to the Lupines that Occur within its Range Kathy Pendergrass, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Portland, Oregon • Use of line drawing illustrations for all species courtesy of the University of Washington Press per C.L. Hitchcock and A. Cronquist. 1961. Vascular Plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 3; Saxifragaceae to Ericaceae. • Most species descriptions and maps of Washington plant distributions courtesy of the Washington University Herbarium, Burke Museum: http://biology.burke.washington.edu/herbarium/imagecollection.php • * Maps of Oregon plant distributions courtesy of the Oregon Flora Project: http://oregonflora.org/atlas.php The purpose of this technical note is to provide information about Kincaid’s lupine, a federal and state-listed Threatened species, and to provide information on how to identify the species from other co-occurring lupines within the species’ range. A special thanks to all who contributed use of photographs for this publication including: Gerald D. Carr, Rod Gilbert, Steve Gisler, Tom Kaye, Ben Legler, Robert Preston, Andy Robinson, Paul Slichter and Mark Turner. We welcome your comments for improving any of the content of this publication for future editions. Please contact kathy.pendergrass@or.usda.gov The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, n ational origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Office of Communications (202) 720-2791.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Status Species List
    APPENDIX J SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES LIST SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES LIST APPENDIX J SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES LIST Common Name Scientific Name State Class Status1 A Caddisfly Farula constricta OR Insect BS Adder’s-tongue Ophioglossum pusillum OR Plant BS Agave, Arizona Agave arizonica AZ Plant FE Agave, Murphey Agave murpheyi AZ Plant BS Agave, Santa Cruz Striped Agave parviflora AZ Plant BS Agoseris, Pink Agoseris lackschewitzii ID Plant BS Albatross, Short-tailed Phoebastris albatrus AK, CA Bird FE Alkaligrass, Howell’s Puccinellia howelli CA Plant BS Alkaligrass, Lemon’s Puccinellia lemmonii CA Plant BS Alkaligrass, Parish’s Puccinellia parishii CA, MT Plant BS Alpine-aster, Tall Oreostemma elatum CA Plant BS Alpine-parsley, Trotter’s Oreoxis trotteri UT Plant BS Alumroot, Duran’s Heuchera duranii CA Plant BS Amaranth, California Amaranthus californicus MT Plant BS Ambersnail, Kanab Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis AZ, UT Snail FE Ambrosia, San Diego Ambrosia pumila CA Plant FE Chlorogalum purpureum var. Amole, Purple CA Plant FT purpureum Amphipod, Malheur Cave Stygobromus hubbsi OR Crustacean BS Amphipod, Noel’s Gammarus desperatus NM Crustacean PE Angelica, King’s Angelica kingii ID Plant BS Angelica, Rough Angelica scabrida NV Plant BS Apachebush Apacheria chircahuensis NM Plant BS Apple, Indian Peraphyllum ramosissimum ID Plant BS Arrowhead, Sanford’s Sagittaria sanfordii CA Plant BS Aster, Gorman’s Eucephalus gormanii OR Plant BS Aster, Pygmy Eurybia pygmaea AK Plant BS Aster, Red Rock Canyon Ionactis caelestis NV Plant BS Avens, Mountain Senecio moresbiensis AK Plant BS Baccharis, Encinitis Baccharis vanessae CA Plant FT Balloonvine Cardiospermum corindum AZ Plant BS Balsamorhiza macrolepis var. Balsamroot, Big-scale CA Plant BS macrolepis Balsamroot, Large-leaved Balsamorhiza macrophylla MT Plant BS Balsamroot, Silky Balsamorhiza sericea CA Plant BS Balsamroot, Woolly Balsamorhiza hookeri var.
    [Show full text]
  • References Cited
    References Cited Ballmer, G. and G.Pratt. 1988. A survey of the last instar larvae of the Lycaenidae of California. J. Res. Lep. 27: 1-81. Claibome, W. 1997. Authorities net butterfly poacher at National Park. Washington Post August 2, 1997. Clark, D.L., Finley, K.K. and Ingersoll, C.A. 1993. Status Report for Erigeron decumbens var. decumbens. Prepared for the Conservation Biology Program, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Salem, OR. 55 pp. Clarke, S.A. 1905. Pioneer Days of Oregon History Vol. I, pp 89-90. J.K. Gill Co., Portland, OR. Collins, N.M. and M.G. Morris. 1985. Threatened Swallowtail butterflies of the world. IUCN Red Data Book. Gland, Switzerland. 401pp. Cronquist, Arthur. 1947. Revision of the North American species of Erigeron, north of Mexico. Brittonia 6: 173-1 74 Dornfeld, E. J. 1980. Butterflies of Oregon. Timber Press, Forest Grove, Oregon. Douglas, D. 1972. The Oregon Journals of David Douglas of His Travels and Adventures Among the Traders and Indians in the Columbia, Willamette, and Snake River Regions During the Years 1825, 1826, and 1827. The Oregon Book Society, Ashland, OR. Downey, J. C. 1962. Myrmecophily in Plebejus (Icaricia) icarioides (Lepid: Lycaenidae). Net. News 73:57-66. Downey, J.C. 1975. Genus Pegasus Klux. Pp. 337-35 1 IN W. H. Howe,ed., The butterflies of North America. Doubleday and Co., Garden City, New York. Duffey, E. 1968. Ecological studies on the large copper butterflies, lycaena dispar batayus, at Woodwalton Fen NNR, Huntingdonshire. J. Appl. Ecol. 5:69-96. Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Priority Plant and Animal Species in Oregon Forests
    A GUIDE TO Priority Plant and Animal Species IN OREGON FORESTS A publication of the Oregon Forest Resources Institute Sponsors of the first animal and plant guidebooks included the Oregon Department of Forestry, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, Oregon State University and the Oregon State Implementation Committee, Sustainable Forestry Initiative. This update was made possible with help from the Northwest Habitat Institute, the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, Institute for Natural Resources, Portland State University and Oregon State University. Acknowledgments: The Oregon Forest Resources Institute is grateful to the following contributors: Thomas O’Neil, Kathleen O’Neil, Malcolm Anderson and Jamie McFadden, Northwest Habitat Institute; the Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity Information System (IBIS), supported in part by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council and the Bonneville Power Administration under project #2003-072-00 and ESRI Conservation Program grants; Sue Vrilakas, Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, Institute for Natural Resources; and Dana Sanchez, Oregon State University, Mark Gourley, Starker Forests and Mike Rochelle, Weyerhaeuser Company. Edited by: Fran Cafferata Coe, Cafferata Consulting, LLC. Designed by: Sarah Craig, Word Jones © Copyright 2012 A Guide to Priority Plant and Animal Species in Oregon Forests Oregonians care about forest-dwelling wildlife and plants. This revised and updated publication is designed to assist forest landowners, land managers, students and educators in understanding how forests provide habitat for different wildlife and plant species. Keeping forestland in forestry is a great way to mitigate habitat loss resulting from development, mining and other non-forest uses. Through the use of specific forestry techniques, landowners can maintain, enhance and even create habitat for birds, mammals and amphibians while still managing lands for timber production.
    [Show full text]
  • Kincaid's Lupine (Lupinus Oreganus)
    Kincaid's lupine (Lupinus oreganus) THREATENED Flowers (left), habit (center), and habitat (right) of Kincaid’s lupine. Photos by Melissa Carr. If downloading images from this website, please credit the photographer. Family Fabaceae Taxonomic notes Synonyms: Lupinus sulphureus ssp. kincaidii, Lupinus sulphureus var. kincaidii, Lupinus oreganus var. kincaidii, Oregon lupine The genus Lupinus poses many taxonomic challenges due to the extremely variable nature of the species and intergradations between recognized taxa, a situation that in many instances is likely the result of or complicated by free interbreeding that has obscured species boundaries. Hybridization is known to occur between Kincaid’s lupine and Lupinus arbustus. Plant description Kincaid’s lupine is a perennial arising from a branched crown, usually with numerous unbranched stems (30) 40-80 (100) cm tall, with whitish or brownish stiff to silky pubescence. Basal leaves are usually persistent until after flowering, with petioles (2) 3-5 times the length of the blades; upper cauline leaves have petioles sometimes shorter than the blades. Leaflets typically number 7-12, are narrowly oblanceolate, usually somewhat acute, 2.5-5 cm long, often remaining somewhat folded, and usually glabrous above and sparsely to copiously hairy beneath. Inflorescences are slender, the flowers numerous and arranged in interrupted whorls. Flowers are fragrant and range in color from bluish or purple to yellowish or creamy white, quickly turning orange- brown with age. The banner is distinctively ruffled (markedly concave on the lateral faces), glabrous, and only somewhat reflexed from the glabrous keel. Pods are 3-4 cm long, with 1-6 pinkish-brown to black seeds.
    [Show full text]
  • And Mission Blue Butterfly Populations Found at Milagra Ridge and the Mission Blue Butterfly Population at Marin Headlands Are Managed by the GGNRA
    San Bruno Elfin Butterfly (Callophrys mossii bayensis) and Mission Blue Butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo by Patrick Kobernus: Adult male mission blue butterfly. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento, California February 2010 5-YEAR REVIEW San Bruno Elfin Butterfly (Callophrys mossii bayensis) and Mission blue butterfly (Icaricia icarioides missionensis) I. GENERAL INFORMATION Purpose of 5-Year Reviews: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is required by section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing of a species as endangered or threatened is based on the existence of threats attributable to one or more of the five threat factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act, and we must consider these same five factors in any subsequent consideration of reclassification or delisting of a species. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100 Portland, Oregon 97266 Phone: (503) 231-6179 FAX: (503) 231-6195 Reply To: 8330.F0047(09) File Name: CREP BO 2009_final.doc TS Number: 09-314 TAILS: 13420-2009-F-0047 Doc Type: Final Don Howard, Acting State Executive Director U.S. Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency, Oregon State Office 7620 SW Mohawk St. Tualatin, OR 97062-8121 Dear Mr. Howard, This letter transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Biological and Conference Opinion (BO) and includes our written concurrence based on our review of the proposed Oregon Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) to be administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) throughout the State of Oregon, and its effects on Federally-listed species in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Your November 24, 2008 request for informal and formal consultation with the Service, and associated Program Biological Assessment for the Oregon Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (BA), were received on November 24, 2008. We received your letter providing a 90-day extension on March 26, 2009 based on the scope and complexity of the program and the related species that are covered, which we appreciated. This Concurrence and BO covers a period of approximately 10 years, from the date of issuance through December 31, 2019. The BA also includes species that fall within the jurisdiction of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries Service).
    [Show full text]
  • Lower South Yamhill-Deer Creek Watershed Assessment
    Yamhill Basin Council September 20, 2000 Lower South Yamhill-Deer Creek Watershed Assessment - 1 - Funding for the Lower S. Yamhill-Deer Creek Watershed Assessment was provided by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) and Resource Assistance for Rural Environments (RARE) Lower S. Yamhill-Deer Creek Watershed Project Manager: Denise Hoffert-Hay, Author Contributors: Dave Hanson, local resident and writer, assisted with historic vegetation and conditions. Liz Gifford, Linfield College intern, assisted with Channel Habitat Types. Robert Grover, Linfield College intern, assisted with fish research. Editor: Melissa Leoni Acknowledgements Many people gave their time and talents to assist in the completion of this document. Where actual written material was used, it is noted in the document. Many people assisted me with learning the computer or analytical techniques needed to complete different sections of the assessment. Others gave me stories of this place they call home. Any errors or omissions are not intentional and are my own. (In no particular order) Robert Grover, Linfield College Graduate Liz Gifford, Linfield College Graduate Gary Galovich, Fish Biologist, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Al White, Oregon Watersheds. Ryan Dalton, GIS Coordinator, Bureau of Land Management Willamette/North Coast Providence Bill Gille, Public Works Department, Yamhill County Dave Carter, Roadmaster, Yamhill County Robert Bower, former Watershed Assessment Project Manager, Yamhill Basin Council Dave Hanson, local watershed resident Glen
    [Show full text]