DOCSLIB.ORG

Mississippi Natural Heritage Program Animals

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mississippi Natural Heritage Program Animals MISSISSIPPI NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM LISTED SPECIES OF MISSISSIPPI 2011 GLOBAL FEDERAL STATE STATE SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME RANK STATUS STATUS RANK ANIMALS BIVALVIA Actinonaias ligamentina Mucket G5 LE S1 Cyclonaias tuberculata Purple Wartyback G5 LE S1 Elliptio arctata Delicate Spike G3Q LE S1 Elliptio dilatata Spike G5 LE S1 Epioblasma brevidens Cumberlandian Combshell G1 LE, XN LE S1 Epioblasma penita Southern Combshell G1 LE LE S1 Epioblasma triquetra Snuffbox G3 LE S1 Hamiota perovalis Orangenacre Mucket G2 LT LE S1 Lexingtonia dolabelloides Slabside Pearlymussel G2 C LE S1 Medionidus acutissimus Alabama Moccasinshell G2 LT LE S1 Plethobasus cyphyus Sheepnose G3 C LE S1 Pleurobema curtum Black Clubshell G1 LE LE SH Pleurobema decisum Southern Clubshell G2 LE LE S1S2 Pleurobema marshalli Flat Pigtoe GH LE LE SX Pleurobema perovatum Ovate Clubshell G1 LE LE S1 Pleurobema rubrum Pyramid Pigtoe G2 LE S1 Pleurobema taitianum Heavy Pigtoe G1 LE LE SX Potamilus capax Fat Pocketbook G1 LE LE S1 Potamilus inflatus Inflated Heelsplitter G1G2 LT LE S1 Ptychobranchus fasciolaris Kidneyshell G4G5 LE S1 Quadrula cylindrica cylindrica Rabbitsfoot G3T3 LE S1 Quadrula metanevra Monkeyface G4 LE SX Quadrula stapes Stirrupshell GH LE LE SX MALACOSTRACA Fallicambarus gordoni Camp Shelby Burrowing Crayfish G1 LE S1 INSECTA Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii Mitchell’s Satyr G2T2 LE S1 Nicrophorus americanus American Burying Beetle G2G3 LE LE SX OSTEICHTHYES Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Gulf Sturgeon G3T2 LT LE S1 Crystallaria asprella Crystal Darter G3 LE S1 Etheostoma blennioides Greenside Darter G5 LE S1 Page 1 of 3 MISSISSIPPI NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM LISTED SPECIES OF MISSISSIPPI 2011 GLOBAL FEDERAL STATE STATE SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME RANK STATUS STATUS RANK OSTEICHTHYES Etheostoma rubrum Bayou Darter G1 LT LE S1 Notropis boops Bigeye Shiner G5 LE S1 Notropis chalybaeus Ironcolor Shiner G4 LE S2 Noturus exilis Slender Madtom G5 LE S1 Noturus gladiator Piebald Madtom G3 LE S1 Noturus munitus Frecklebelly Madtom G3 LE S2 Percina aurora Pearl Darter G1 C LE S1 Percina phoxocephala Slenderhead Darter G5 LE S1 Phenacobius mirabilis Suckermouth Minnow G5 LE S1 2 Phoxinus erythrogaster Southern Redbelly Dace G5 LE S2 Scaphirhynchus albus Pallid Sturgeon G1 LE LE S1 Scaphirhynchus platorynchus Shovelnose Sturgeon G4 T/SA S3? Scaphirhynchus suttkusi Alabama Sturgeon G1 LE LE S1 AMPHIBIA Amphiuma pholeter One-toed Amphiuma G3 LE S1 Aneides aeneus Green Salamander G3G4 LE S1 Eurycea lucifuga Cave Salamander G5 LE S1 Gyrinophilus porphyriticus Spring Salamander G5 LE S1 Rana sevosa Dusky Gopher Frog G1 LE LE S1 REPTILIA Caretta caretta Loggerhead G3 LT LE S1B Chelonia mydas Green Turtle G3 LE, LT LE SNA Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback G2 LE LE SNA Drymarchon couperi Eastern Indigo Snake G3 LT LE SH Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill G3 LE LE SNA Farancia erytrogramma Rainbow Snake G5 LE S2 Gopherus polyphemus Gopher Tortoise G3 PS:LT LE S2 Graptemys flavimaculata Yellow-blotched Map Turtle G2 LT LE S2 Graptemys nigrinoda Black-knobbed Map Turtle G3 LE S2 Graptemys oculifera Ringed Map Turtle G2 LT LE S2 Heterodon simus Southern Hognose Snake G2 LE SX Lepidochelys kempii Kemp's or Atlantic Ridley G1 LE LE S1N Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi Black Pine Snake G4T3 C LE S2 Pseudemys alabamensis Alabama Redbelly Turtle G1 LE LE S1 AVES Campephilus principalis Ivory-billed Woodpecker G1 LE LE SX Page 2 of 3 MISSISSIPPI NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM LISTED SPECIES OF MISSISSIPPI 2011 GLOBAL FEDERAL STATE STATE SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME RANK STATUS STATUS RANK AVES Charadrius alexandrinus tenuirostris Southeastern Snowy Plover G4T3Q LE S1B,S1N Charadrius melodus Piping Plover G3 LE, LT LE S1N Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon G4 LE SNA Grus canadensis pulla Mississippi Sandhill Crane G5T1 LE LE S1 Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle G5 LE S1B,S2N Mycteria americana Wood Stork G4 PS:LE LE S1N Pelecanus occidentalis Brown Pelican G4 LE S1N Picoides borealis Red-cockaded Woodpecker G3 LE LE S1 3 Sterna antillarum athalassos Interior Least Tern G4T2Q PS:LE LE S3?B Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's Wren G5 LE S2S3B Vermivora bachmanii Bachman's Warbler GH LE LE SXB MAMMALIA Myotis grisescens Gray Myotis G3 LE LE SNA Myotis sodalis Indiana Bat G2 LE LE SNA Puma concolor coryi Florida Panther G5T1 LE LE SX Trichechus manatus West Indian Manatee G2 LE LE SNA Ursus americanus American Black Bear G5 PS LE S1 Ursus americanus luteolus Louisiana Black Bear G5T2 LT LE S1 PLANTS 1 DICOTYLEDONEAE Apios priceana Price’s Potato Bean G2 LT S1 Lindera melissifolia Pondberry G2 LE S2 Schwalbea Americana Chaffseed G2 LE SH ISOETOPSIDA Isoetes louisianensis Louisiana quillwort G3 LE S2 1 Mississippi has no status concerning endangered plants. 2 West Mississippi disjunct populations 3 Interior populations nesting along the Mississippi River Cite the list as: Mississippi Natural Heritage Program, 2011. Listed Species of Mississippi. Museum of Natural Science, Mississippi Dept. of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, Jackson, MS. 3pp. Page 3 of 3.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2020 Mississippi Bird EA
    ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Managing Damage and Threats of Damage Caused by Birds in the State of Mississippi Prepared by United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services In Cooperation with: The Tennessee Valley Authority January 2020 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Wildlife is an important public resource that can provide economic, recreational, emotional, and esthetic benefits to many people. However, wildlife can cause damage to agricultural resources, natural resources, property, and threaten human safety. When people experience damage caused by wildlife or when wildlife threatens to cause damage, people may seek assistance from other entities. The United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services (WS) program is the lead federal agency responsible for managing conflicts between people and wildlife. Therefore, people experiencing damage or threats of damage associated with wildlife could seek assistance from WS. In Mississippi, WS has and continues to receive requests for assistance to reduce and prevent damage associated with several bird species. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to incorporate environmental planning into federal agency actions and decision-making processes. Therefore, if WS provided assistance by conducting activities to manage damage caused by bird species, those activities would be a federal action requiring compliance with the NEPA. The NEPA requires federal agencies to have available
    [Show full text]
  • RFP No. 212F for Endangered Species Research Projects for the Prairie Chub
    1 RFP No. 212f for Endangered Species Research Projects for the Prairie Chub Final Report Contributing authors: David S. Ruppel, V. Alex Sotola, Ozlem Ablak Gurbuz, Noland H. Martin, and Timothy H. Bonner Addresses: Department of Biology, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas 78666 (DSR, VAS, NHM, THB) Kirkkonaklar Anatolian High School, Turkish Ministry of Education, Ankara, Turkey (OAG) Principal investigators: Timothy H. Bonner and Noland H. Martin Email: [email protected], [email protected] Date: July 31, 2017 Style: American Fisheries Society Funding sources: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Turkish Ministry of Education- Visiting Scholar Program (OAG) Summary Four hundred mesohabitats were sampled from 36 sites and 20 reaches within the upper Red River drainage from September 2015 through September 2016. Fishes (N = 36,211) taken from the mesohabitats represented 14 families and 49 species with the most abundant species consisting of Red Shiner Cyprinella lutrensis, Red River Shiner Notropis bairdi, Plains Minnow Hybognathus placitus, and Western Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis. Red River Pupfish Cyprinodon rubrofluviatilis (a species of greatest conservation need, SGCN) and Plains Killifish Fundulus zebrinus were more abundant within prairie streams (e.g., swift and shallow runs with sand and silt substrates) with high specific conductance. Red River Shiner (SGCN), Prairie Chub Macrhybopsis australis (SGCN), and Plains Minnow were more abundant within prairie 2 streams with lower specific conductance. The remaining 44 species of fishes were more abundant in non-prairie stream habitats with shallow to deep waters, which were more common in eastern tributaries of the upper Red River drainage and Red River mainstem. Prairie Chubs comprised 1.3% of the overall fish community and were most abundant in Pease River and Wichita River.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish of Greatest Conservation Need
    APPENDIX G. FISH OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED Taxa Common Name Scientific Name Tier Opportunity Ranking Fish Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus IV a Fish Allegheny pearl dace Margariscus margarita IV b Fish American brook lamprey Lampetra appendix IV c Fish American eel Anguilla rostrata III a Fish American shad Alosa sapidissima IV a Fish Appalachia darter Percina gymnocephala IV c Fish Ashy darter Etheostoma cinereum I b Fish Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus I b Fish Banded sunfish Enneacanthus obesus IV c Fish Bigeye jumprock Moxostoma ariommum III c Fish Black sculpin Cottus baileyi IV c Fish Blackbanded sunfish Enneacanthus chaetodon I a Fish Blackside darter Percina maculata IV c Fish Blotched chub Erimystax insignis IV c Fish Blotchside logperch Percina burtoni II a Fish Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis IV a Fish Bluebreast darter Etheostoma camurum IV c Fish Blueside darter Etheostoma jessiae IV c Fish Bluestone sculpin Cottus sp. 1 III c Fish Brassy Jumprock Moxostoma sp. IV c Fish Bridle shiner Notropis bifrenatus I a Fish Brook silverside Labidesthes sicculus IV c Fish Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis IV a Fish Bullhead minnow Pimephales vigilax IV c Fish Candy darter Etheostoma osburni I b Fish Carolina darter Etheostoma collis II c Virginia Wildlife Action Plan 2015 APPENDIX G. FISH OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED Fish Carolina fantail darter Etheostoma brevispinum IV c Fish Channel darter Percina copelandi III c Fish Clinch dace Chrosomus sp. cf. saylori I a Fish Clinch sculpin Cottus sp. 4 III c Fish Dusky darter Percina sciera IV c Fish Duskytail darter Etheostoma percnurum I a Fish Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides IV c Fish Fatlips minnow Phenacobius crassilabrum II c Fish Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens III c Fish Golden Darter Etheostoma denoncourti II b Fish Greenfin darter Etheostoma chlorobranchium I b Fish Highback chub Hybopsis hypsinotus IV c Fish Highfin Shiner Notropis altipinnis IV c Fish Holston sculpin Cottus sp.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters a Method and Its Rationale
    Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters A Method and Its Rationale James R. Karr Kurt D. Fausch Paul L. Angermeier Philip R. Yant Isaac J. Schlosser Jordan Creek ---------------- ] Excellent !:: ~~~~~~~~~;~~;~~ ~ :: ,. JPoor --------------- 111 1C tE 2A 28 20 3A SO 3E 4A 48 4C 40 4E Station Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 5 September 1986 Printed by authority of the State of Illinois Illinois Natural History Survey 172 Natural Resources Building 607 East Peabody Drive Champaign, Illinois 61820 The Illinois Natural History Survey is pleased to publish this report and make it available to a wide variety of potential users. The Survey endorses the concepts from which the Index of Biotic Integrity was developed but cautions, as the authors are careful to indicate, that details must be tailored to lit the geographic region in which the Index is to be used. Glen C. Sanderson, Chair, Publications Committee, Illinois Natural History Survey R. Weldon Larimore of the Illinois Natural History Survey took the cover photos, which show two reaches ofJordan Creek in east-central Illinois-an undisturbed site and a site that shows the effects of grazing and agricultural activity. Current affiliations of the authors are listed below: James R. Karr, Deputy Director, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Panama Kurt D. Fausch, Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins Paul L. Angermeier, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg Philip R. Yant, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Isaac J. Schlosser, Department of Biology, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks VDP-1-3M-9-86 ISSN 0888-9546 Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters A Method and Its Rationale James R.
    [Show full text]
  • Host Fishes and Infection Strategies of Freshwater Mussels in Large Mobile Basin Streams, USA
    Host fishes and infection strategies of freshwater mussels in large Mobile Basin streams, USA WENDELL R. HAAG' AND MELVIN L. WARREN, JR. USDA Forest Service, Southern Researck Station, Center for Bottomland Hardxuods Researck, 1000 Front Street, Ox&d, Mississippi 38655 LISA Abstract. We investigated host fishes, timing and modes of glochidial release, and host-attraction strategies for 7 species of freshwater mussels from the Buttahatchee and Sipsey rivers (Mobile Basin), Alabama and Mississippi, USA. We determined hosts as fish species that produced juvenile mussels from laboratory-induced glochidial infections. We established the following primary mussel/host relationships: Elliytio nrcn with Etl~~~tomu nrtcsinc and Percitza ~zigr#scintu; Fusconain cerina with 6 species of minnows (Cyprinidae); Lm7psilis ormtn with Micropkrus sahoidcs; Mcdionidus acutissimus with 8 species of darters (Percidae); Obtnwrin unicolor with Anrmmytn bcnili, A. nrcridinrm, and Et/l- enstomn art&v; Phrobemn decisunr with Cyril~elln wrmstn; and Quadruin aspernta with lctnlurus punt- tatus. For most mussel species, host use was similar to that of closely related species, indicating that, in general, this trait is highly conserved at the generic level. Four mussel species used host-attraction strategies that targeted their specific host fish. Fusronnin cerirla and I! dmisurn released glochidia in conglutinates that elicited feeding responses from fishes in the field and in the laboratory. Gravid female Dmrpsilis ornatn and M. ncutissimus displayed mantle lures. Host-attraction strategies were less apparent for E. arcn and (2. nspmdn, but these species released glochidia in association with copious mucous secretions, which may serve to entangle fishes, facilitating host infection. No host-attraction strategy was apparent for 0.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species Expenditure Report (1998)
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Federal and State Endangered and Threatened Species Expenditures Fiscal Year 1998 January 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... ii What is the purpose of this report? ....................................................................................................... ii What expenditures are reported?.......................................................................................................... ii What expenditures are not included?.................................................................................................... ii What are the expenditures reported for FY 1998?................................................................................ ii How does the 1998 expenditure report compare to other years? ......................................................... ii ENDANGERED SPECIES EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEAR 1998...................................................1 PURPOSE.............................................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................1 What does "Reasonably Identifiable Expenditures" mean? .........................................................1 What is not included in the report? ...............................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • Decapoda: Cambaridae) of Arkansas Henry W
    Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 71 Article 9 2017 An Annotated Checklist of the Crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae) of Arkansas Henry W. Robison Retired, [email protected] Keith A. Crandall George Washington University, [email protected] Chris T. McAllister Eastern Oklahoma State College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas Part of the Biology Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Robison, Henry W.; Crandall, Keith A.; and McAllister, Chris T. (2017) "An Annotated Checklist of the Crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae) of Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 71 , Article 9. Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol71/iss1/9 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. An Annotated Checklist of the Crayfishes (Decapoda: Cambaridae) of Arkansas Cover Page Footnote Our deepest thanks go to HWR’s numerous former SAU students who traveled with him in search of crayfishes on many fieldtrips throughout Arkansas from 1971 to 2008. Personnel especially integral to this study were C.
    [Show full text]
  • Brazos Dwarf Crayfish (Cambarellus Texanus) Ecological Risk Screening Summary
    Brazos Dwarf Crayfish (Cambarellus texanus) Ecological Risk Screening Summary U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, April 2014 Revised, October 2016 Web Version, 11/17/2017 Photo: © Keith A. Crandall. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike License. Available: http://tolweb.org/Cambarellus_(Pandicambarus)_texanus. (October 2016). 1 Native Range and Status in the United States Native Range From Fetzner (2016): “East of the Lavaca River and Bay to the Brazos River drainage system, Texas.” Status in the United States From Alvarez et al. (2010): “This species was first found in a ditch near Bay City in Matagorda County, Texas. It has since been found in the Colorado River, Fort Bend County, and Waller County. It is thought that the range is bound by the Lavaca River and Bay on the west, though the northward and eastward range limits are not known (Albaugh and Black 1973).” “This species has been collected from 31 sites and is believed to be common at most sites (D. Johnson pers. comm. 2009).” 1 Means of Introductions in the United States This species has not been reported as introduced outside of its native range in the United States. Remarks From NatureServe (2015): “It is found only in Texas in a small range near the central Texas coast (Johnson and Johnson, 2008). It has a larger range than Cambarellus ninae, but does occur in an area that is experiencing urban growth; however populations appear stable and there is no evidence of decline.” 2 Biology and Ecology Taxonomic Hierarchy and Taxonomic Standing From ITIS
    [Show full text]
  • SOUTHERN CLUBSHELL Scientific Name: Pleurobema Decisum Lea
    Southern clubshell (Pleurobema decisum) 56 mm (2¼ inches). Conasauga River, Murray Co., Georgia. Photo by Jason Wisniewski, GA DNR. Specimen provided by the McClung Museum courtesy of Gerry Dinkins. Common Name: SOUTHERN CLUBSHELL Scientific Name: Pleurobema decisum Lea Other Commonly Used Names: none Previously Used Scientific Names: none Family: Unionidae Rarity Ranks: G2/S1 State Legal Status: Endangered Federal Legal Status: Endangered Description: Shell profile is subtriangular in outline and the shell is heavy and inflated with a maximum length or approximately 93 mm (3¾ inches). Anterior margin broadly rounded to truncate and posterior margin is bluntly pointed and terminates below the midline of the shell. Ventral margin typically straight to broadly rounded. Umbos positioned far anteriorly and elevated above the hingeline. Posterior ridge is broadly rounded, becoming less prominent near the ventral margin. The periostracum is amber to brown, sometimes with broken rays. Pseudocardinal teeth are heavy and lateral teeth are long and slightly curved. Umbo cavity shallow. Nacre color typically white. Similar Species: The genus Pleurobema is generally regarded as one of the most difficult of genera to identify. Even the most seasoned malacologists find mussels in this genus to be extremely difficult to identify due to very few, or subtle differing, conchological characteristics. Williams et al. (2008) recognize two species that strongly resemble the southern clubshell and should be referenced to obtain a detailed list of similar species and characteristics to distinguish between these species. As a result, no similar species will be discussed in this account. Habitat: Typically occupies large streams to large rivers with moderate flow and sand or gravel substrates; sometimes found in pools with slow or no current.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Report (ER) (TVA 2003) in Conjunction with Its Application for Renewal of the BFN Ols, As Provided for by the Following NRC Regulations
    Biological Assessment Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal Review Limestone County, Alabama October 2004 Docket Numbers 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland Biological Assessment of the Potential Effects on Endangered or Threatened Species from the Proposed License Renewal for the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 1.0 Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses the operation of domestic nuclear power plants in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and NRC implementing regulations. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) operates Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 (BFN) pursuant to NRC operating license (OL) numbers DPR-33, DPR-52, DPR-68, which expire on December 20, 2013, June 28, 2014, and July 2, 2016, respectively. TVA has prepared an Environmental Report (ER) (TVA 2003) in conjunction with its application for renewal of the BFN OLs, as provided for by the following NRC regulations: C Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 54, “Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,” Section 54.23, Contents of application - environmental information (10 CFR 54.23). C Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions,” Section 51.53, Postconstruction environmental reports, Subsection 51.53(c), Operating license renewal stage (10 CFR 51.53(c)). The renewed OLs would allow up to 20 additional years of plant operation beyond the current licensed operating term. No major refurbishment or replacement of important systems, structures, or components are expected during the 20-year BFN license renewal term.
    [Show full text]
  • February 27, 2017 Ms. Amber Tubbs Mcgehee Engineering Corp. P.O
    STATE OF ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES 64 NORTH UNION STREET, SUITE 464 MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36130 ROBERT BENTLEY PATRICIA J. POWELL, DIRECTOR GOVERNOR STATE LANDS DIVISION N. GUNTER GUY, JR. TELEPHONE (334) 242-3484 COMMISSIONER FAX NO (334) 242-0999 CURTIS JONES DEPUTY COMMISSIONER February 27, 2017 Ms. Amber Tubbs McGehee Engineering Corp. P.O. Box 3431 Jasper, AL 35502-3431 RE: Sensitive Species Information request Southland Resources, Inc. - Searles Mine No. 10 Dear Ms. Tubbs: The Natural Heritage Section office received your e-mail dated 2/24/2017 addressed to Ashley Peters on 2/27/2017 and has since developed the following information pertaining to sensitive species (state protected, and federally listed candidate, threatened, and endangered species). I have enclosed a list of sensitive species which the Natural Heritage Section Database or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have indicated occur or have occurred in Tuscaloosa County. Additionally, I have listed some potentially helpful and informative web sites at the end of this letter. The Natural Heritage Section database contains numerous records of sensitive species in Tuscaloosa County. Our database indicates the area of interest has had no biological survey performed at the delineated location, by our staff or any individuals referenced in our database. Therefore we can make no accurate assessment to the past or current inhabitancy of any federal or state protected species at that location. A biological survey conducted by trained professionals is the most accurate way to ensure that no sensitive species are jeopardized by the development activities. The closest sensitive species is recorded in our database as occurring approximately 5.4 miles from the subject site.
    [Show full text]
  • September 24, 2018
    September 24, 2018 Sent via Federal eRulemaking Portal to: http://www.regulations.gov Docket Nos. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0006 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0007 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0009 Bridget Fahey Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041-3808 [email protected] Craig Aubrey Chief, Division of Environmental Review Ecological Services Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041 [email protected] Samuel D. Rauch, III National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 [email protected] Re: Proposed Revisions of Endangered Species Act Regulations Dear Mr. Aubrey, Ms. Fahey, and Mr. Rauch: The Southern Environmental Law Center (“SELC”) submits the following comments in opposition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s and National Marine Fisheries Service’s proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act’s implementing regulations.1 We submit these comments on behalf of 57 organizations working to protect the natural resources of the 1 Revision of the Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,174 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17); Revision of Regulations for Interagency Cooperation, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,178 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 402); Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,193 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]