DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Combined Report- Mason Dam Project Baker

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Combined Report- Mason Dam Project Baker COMBINED VEGETATION AND THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND SENSITIVE SPECIES ASSESSMENT -FINAL COMBINED REPORT- MASON DAM PROJECT BAKER COUNTY, OREGON Project Number P-12686-001 Prepared for Baker County 1995 Third Street Baker City, Oregon 97814 Prepared by EcoWest Consulting, Inc. 13740 Red Fox Baker, OR 97814 541-523-5572 May 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview..............................................................................................................1 1.2 Project Description.............................................................................................3 2.0 METHODS 2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 Federal and State-Listed Species...........................................................4 2.1.2 Forest Service Sensitive Species.............................................................4 2.1.3 Rare Species Summary............................................................................5 2.2 TES PreField Screening 2.2.1 2007 TES Prefield Screening...................................................................5 2.2.2 2008 TES Prefield Screening...................................................................6 2.2.3 TES Plant Phenology................................................................................7 2.3 Field Methods 2.3.1 TES Species................................................................................................7 2.3.2 Vegetation Mapping/Characterization..................................................10 2.4 Analysis Methods 2.4.1 TES Species...............................................................................................11 2.4.2 Vegetation Characterization...................................................................11 2.4.3 Wetland/Riparian Functional Assessment............................................12 2.4.4 Wetland and Riparian Impacts..............................................................13 3.0 FEDERAL AND STATE-LISTED SPECIES ACCOUNTS 3.1 Federally Listed Species......................................................................................14 3.2 State -Listed Species............................................................................................17 3.3 FWS Species of Concern.....................................................................................22 4.0 TES RESULTS 4.1 Federal and State-listed Species 4.1.1 Pre-Field Screening..................................................................................31 4.1.2 Summary of Federal/State-Listed Species Pre-Field Screening..........39 4.2 Forest Service Sensitive Species 4.2.1 Pre-Field Screening.................................................................................39 4.2.2 Summary of Forest Service Sensitive Species Pre-Field Screening....47 4.3 Species Phenology...............................................................................................47 4.4 Field Survey Results............................................................................................49 4.4.1 Wetland/Aquatic Dependent TES Species............................................49 4.4.2 Upland Forest Dependent TES Species.................................................55 4.4.3 Rock/Talus Slope Dependent TES Species............................................58 4.4.4 Bats and Myotis........................................................................................59 4.4.5 Summary of Surveys and Habitat Assessments....................................60 5.0 TES SPECIES IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 5.1 Federal and State-listed Species 5.1.1 Introduction............................................................................................67 5.1.2 Bald Eagle................................................................................................67 5.1.3 Bull Trout................................................................................................70 5.1.4 Gray Wolf................................................................................................70 5.1.5 Blue Mountain Cryptochian Caddisfly.................................................71 5.2 Forest Service Sensitive Species 5.2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................71 5.2.2 Red Band Trout.......................................................................................71 5.3 Enhancement Measures......................................................................................71 6.0 VEGETATION STUDY RESULTS 6.1 Introduction........................................................................................................73 6.2 Wetland and Aquatic Habitats 6.2.1 Open Water............................................................................................73 6.2.2 Powder River Riparian.........................................................................75 6.2.3 Tributary Wetlands...............................................................................76 6.2.4 Functional Assessment..........................................................................80 6.2.5 Wetland and Aquatic Habitat Summary............................................82 6.3 Upland Habitats.................................................................................................82 6.3.1 Upland Forest.........................................................................................84 6.3.2 Dry Grassland........................................................................................88 6.3.3 Rock/Talus Slope...................................................................................90 6.3.4 Bare.........................................................................................................90 6.3.5 Upland Habitat Summary....................................................................91 6.4 Potential Impacts..............................................................................................92 6.4.1 Direct Impacts.......................................................................................92 6.4.2 Indirect Impacts....................................................................................93 6.4.3 Summary of Potential Impacts............................................................94 7.0 REFERENCES..............................................................................................................96 APPENDIX A: MASON DAM PROJECT MAPS AND FIGURES................................101 Figure 1. Mason Dam Project Study Area for TES Species Figure 2. Mason Dam Project Study Area for TES Species and Additional Potential Impact area for Bald Eagle Figure 3a. Bald Eagle Nest Site and BEMA Boundaries. Figure 3b. Potential Construction Noise Impact Zones Figure 4. Known and Potential TES Habitat in the Vicinity of the Mason Dam Project. Figure 5a. Mason Dam Study Area Figure 5b. Mason Dam Study Area Vegetation Map Figure 5c. Mason Dam Vegetation Data Points Map APPENDIX B: AGENCY TES SPECIES LISTS........................................................................110 APPENDIX C: REPRESENTATIVE HABITAT PHOTOGRAPHS........................................119 APPENDIX D: PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED DURING 2007 AND 2008 TES FIELD ASSESSMENTS....................................................................................................134 APPENDIX E: WILDLIFE SPECIES/SIGN OBSERVED DURING 2007 AND 2008 TES FIELD ASSESSMENTS.......................................................................................143 APPENDIX F: VEGETATION STUDY DATA SHEETS..........................................................147 APPENDIX G: BAKER BIRD CLUB OBSERVATIONS WITHIN THE MASON DAM VICINITY..............................................................................................................189 APPENDIX H: NOXIOUS WEED ASSESSMENT.....................................................................191 APPENDIX I: ODFW SENSITIVE SPECIES ASSESSMENT.................................................264 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview Baker County has applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to develop hydroelectric energy at the existing Mason Dam. Mason Dam is located in Baker County, Oregon approximately 15 miles southwest of Baker City off of State Highway 7. Mason Dam was built by the US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) on the Powder River for irrigation, water delivery and flood control. Water is stored behind Mason Dam in Phillips Lake, and released during the irrigation season by Baker Valley Irrigation District. Water is generally stored between October and March and released April through September (Baker County 2006). Releases average approximately 10 cfs between October and January, increase to an average 20 to 50 cfs during February and March and generally remain above 100 to 200 cfs through the remainder of the year. As part of the licensing process, FERC and other resource agencies requested a number of studies to be completed. Two of the requested studies were: Study Plan 2-Vegetation, Rare Plants, and Noxious Weeds and Study Plan 3 -Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species Assessment. These studies are made up of the following components, (1) threatened, endangered, or sensitive (TES) species and (2) general botanical resources including wetland/riparian habitats, rare plants and noxious weeds. The study plan results overlap, and FERC (2008) approved the combination of the two study plan results into a single final report for all TES species, habitats and botanical resources. Instead of splitting
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 Annual Technical Report
    Corvallis Plant Materials Center 2012 Annual Technical Report USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Table of Contents Introduction............................................................................................................... 4 2012 Corvallis PMC Publications............................................................................. 5 UStudy number UCorvallis PMC Studies 40-dece-sf The Effect of Different Rates and Timing of Nitrogen Fertilization on Seed 7 Production of Willamette Germplasm Tufted Hairgrass.......................................... 50-caqu-es Ability of Camas (Camassia spp.) to Establish from Seed in a Wetland under Two Hydrologic Conditions Following Different Site Preparation and Planting 13 Treatments................................................................................................................. ORPMC-P-0907-UR Mass selection of sand fescue (Festuca ammobia) for low maintenance turf and 23 perennial cover.......................................................................................................... ORPMC-T-1110-WL Pollinator/Insectary Forb Planting Trial................................................................... 30 ORPMC-T-1111 The growth and tillering response of sand fescue to a single fall mowing at three 34 different heights........................................................................................................ ORPMC-T-1202 Springbank Clover Common Garden Study............................................................. 38 ORPMC-T-1203
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plants at Fort Ross State Historic Park
    19005 Coast Highway One, Jenner, CA 95450 ■ 707.847.3437 ■ [email protected] ■ www.fortross.org Title: Vascular Plants at Fort Ross State Historic Park Author(s): Dorothy Scherer Published by: California Native Plant Society i Source: Fort Ross Conservancy Library URL: www.fortross.org Fort Ross Conservancy (FRC) asks that you acknowledge FRC as the source of the content; if you use material from FRC online, we request that you link directly to the URL provided. If you use the content offline, we ask that you credit the source as follows: “Courtesy of Fort Ross Conservancy, www.fortross.org.” Fort Ross Conservancy, a 501(c)(3) and California State Park cooperating association, connects people to the history and beauty of Fort Ross and Salt Point State Parks. © Fort Ross Conservancy, 19005 Coast Highway One, Jenner, CA 95450, 707-847-3437 .~ ) VASCULAR PLANTS of FORT ROSS STATE HISTORIC PARK SONOMA COUNTY A PLANT COMMUNITIES PROJECT DOROTHY KING YOUNG CHAPTER CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY DOROTHY SCHERER, CHAIRPERSON DECEMBER 30, 1999 ) Vascular Plants of Fort Ross State Historic Park August 18, 2000 Family Botanical Name Common Name Plant Habitat Listed/ Community Comments Ferns & Fern Allies: Azollaceae/Mosquito Fern Azo/la filiculoides Mosquito Fern wp Blechnaceae/Deer Fern Blechnum spicant Deer Fern RV mp,sp Woodwardia fimbriata Giant Chain Fern RV wp Oennstaedtiaceae/Bracken Fern Pleridium aquilinum var. pubescens Bracken, Brake CG,CC,CF mh T Oryopteridaceae/Wood Fern Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosorum Western lady Fern RV sp,wp Dryopteris arguta Coastal Wood Fern OS op,st Dryopteris expansa Spreading Wood Fern RV sp,wp Polystichum munitum Western Sword Fern CF mh,mp Equisetaceae/Horsetail Equisetum arvense Common Horsetail RV ds,mp Equisetum hyemale ssp.affine Common Scouring Rush RV mp,sg Equisetum laevigatum Smooth Scouring Rush mp,sg Equisetum telmateia ssp.
    [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]
  • Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Botanical Studies Open Educational Resources and Data 9-17-2018 Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park James P. Smith Jr Humboldt State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Smith, James P. Jr, "Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Redwood National Park" (2018). Botanical Studies. 85. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/85 This Flora of Northwest California-Checklists of Local Sites is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources and Data at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Botanical Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A CHECKLIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS OF THE REDWOOD NATIONAL & STATE PARKS James P. Smith, Jr. Professor Emeritus of Botany Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State Univerity Arcata, California 14 September 2018 The Redwood National and State Parks are located in Del Norte and Humboldt counties in coastal northwestern California. The national park was F E R N S established in 1968. In 1994, a cooperative agreement with the California Department of Parks and Recreation added Del Norte Coast, Prairie Creek, Athyriaceae – Lady Fern Family and Jedediah Smith Redwoods state parks to form a single administrative Athyrium filix-femina var. cyclosporum • northwestern lady fern unit. Together they comprise about 133,000 acres (540 km2), including 37 miles of coast line. Almost half of the remaining old growth redwood forests Blechnaceae – Deer Fern Family are protected in these four parks.
    [Show full text]
  • C6 Noncarice Sedge
    CYPERACEAE etal Got Sedge? Part Two revised 24 May 2015. Draft from Designs On Nature; Up Your C 25 SEDGES, FOINS COUPANTS, LAÎCHES, ROUCHES, ROUCHETTES, & some mostly wet things in the sedge family. Because Bill Gates has been shown to eat footnotes (burp!, & enjoy it), footnotes are (italicized in the body of the text) for their protection. Someone who can spell caespitose only won way has know imagination. Much of the following is taken verbatim from other works, & often not credited. There is often not a way to paraphrase or rewrite habitat or descriptive information without changing the meaning. I am responsible for any mistakes in quoting or otherwise. This is a learning tool, & a continuation of an idea of my friend & former employer, Jock Ingels, LaFayette Home Nursery, who hoped to present more available information about a plant in one easily accessible place, instead of scattered though numerous sources. This is a work in perpetual progress, a personal learning tool, full uv misstakes, & written as a personal means instead of a public end. Redundant, repetitive, superfluous, & contradictory information is present. It is being consolidated. CYPERACEAE Sauergrasgewächse SEDGES, aka BIESIES, SEGGEN Formally described in 1789 by De Jussieu. The family name is derived from the genus name Cyperus, from the Greek kupeiros, meaning sedge. Many species are grass-like, being tufted, with long, thin, narrow leaves, jointed stems, & branched inflorescence of small flowers, & are horticulturally lumped with grasses as graminoids. Archer (2005) suggests the term graminoid be used for true grasses, & cyperoid be used for sedges. (If physical anthropologists have hominoids & hominids, why don’t we have graminoids & graminids?) There are approximately 104 genera, 4 subfamilies, 14 tribes, & about 5000 species worldwide, with 27 genera & 843 species in North America (Ball et al 2002).
    [Show full text]
  • GREAT PLAINS REGION - NWPL 2016 FINAL RATINGS User Notes: 1) Plant Species Not Listed Are Considered UPL for Wetland Delineation Purposes
    GREAT PLAINS REGION - NWPL 2016 FINAL RATINGS User Notes: 1) Plant species not listed are considered UPL for wetland delineation purposes. 2) A few UPL species are listed because they are rated FACU or wetter in at least one Corps region.
    [Show full text]
  • 39516 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 1985
    39516 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 188 / Friday, September 27, 1985 / Rules and Regulations reaction irreversibility or by formation polarography or square-wave (3) Irving, H., “The Stability of Metal of two or more complex species in polarography). Complexes and Their Measurement equilibrium with each other. In this last (3) Interpretation and evaluation of Polarographically," Advances ih case it is necessary to apply the method resu lts, (i) Stability constants Polarography Proceedings of the 2nd by De Ford and Hume paragraph (d) (8) determined for a new substance can be International Congress, Ed. I.S. of this section to calculate stepwise compared with literature values for Langmuir (Pergamon Press, 1960). formation constants. standard substances (see Reference (4) Perrin, D.D., Dempsey, B., B u ffe r (2) Test report, (i) The test report substances, above) and used therefore for pH and Metal Ion Controls. should list for each metal ion to evaluate the strength of its (Chapman and Hall: London, 1974). investigated the half-wave potential complexing ability. (5) “Stability Constants of Metal-ion Complexes,” Part B, Organic Ligands, Ei /2 , co-ordination number and overall (ii) The system is physically stability constant. Compiled by D.D. Perrin, IUPAC meaningful if (A) the value of the Publication on Chemical Data Series, stability constant is positive and (B) the (ii) In addition, the following should No. 22 (Pergamon Press, 1979) also be reported: standard error is less than the constant (6) Grabaric, B., Tkalcec, M., Piljac, L, (A) Type of polarisable micro­ (the t-test should be used as a criterion).
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix F.7
    APPENDIX F.7 Biological Evaluation Appendix F.7 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project Biological Evaluation March 2019 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. Reviewed and Approved by: USDA Forest Service BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION This page intentionally left blank BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES .................................................... 1 PRE-FIELD REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 4 RESULTS OF FIELD SURVEYS ...................................................................................... 4 SPECIES IMPACT DETERMINATION SUMMARY .......................................................... 5 DETAILED EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ON SPECIES CONSIDERED ............ 25 6.1 Global Discussion ........................................................................................................ 25 6.1.1 Analysis Areas and Current Environment ............................................................. 25 6.1.2 Impacts .................................................................................................................. 33 6.1.3 Conservation Measures and Mitigation ................................................................. 62 6.2 Species Accounts and Analysis of Impacts ................................................................. 63 6.2.1 Mammals ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Carex and Scleria
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies Nebraska Academy of Sciences 1997 Keys and Distributional Maps for Nebraska Cyperaceae, Part 2: Carex and Scleria Steven B. Rolfsmeier Barbara Wilson Oregon State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tnas Part of the Life Sciences Commons Rolfsmeier, Steven B. and Wilson, Barbara, "Keys and Distributional Maps for Nebraska Cyperaceae, Part 2: Carex and Scleria" (1997). Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societies. 73. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/tnas/73 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Nebraska Academy of Sciences at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences and Affiliated Societiesy b an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. 1997. Transactions of the Nebraska Academy of Sciences, 24: 5-26 KEYS AND DISTRIBUTIONAL MAPS FOR NEBRASKA CYPERACEAE, PART 2: CAREX AND SCLERIA Steven B. Rolfsmeier and Barbara Wilson* 2293 Superior Road Department of Biology Milford, Nebraska 68405-8420 University of Nebraska at Omaha Omaha, Nebraska 68182-0040 *Present address: Department of Botany, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon ABSTRACT Flora GP are deleted based on misidentifications: Carex Keys and distributional maps are provided for the 71 species and one hybrid of Carex and single species of Scleria festucacea, C. haydenii, C. muehlenbergii var. enervis, documented for Nebraska. Six species-Carex albursina, C. C. normalis, C. siccata (reported as C. foenea), C. stricta, melanostachya, C.
    [Show full text]
  • Floristic Quality Assessment Report
    FLORISTIC QUALITY ASSESSMENT IN INDIANA: THE CONCEPT, USE, AND DEVELOPMENT OF COEFFICIENTS OF CONSERVATISM Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) the State tree of Indiana June 2004 Final Report for ARN A305-4-53 EPA Wetland Program Development Grant CD975586-01 Prepared by: Paul E. Rothrock, Ph.D. Taylor University Upland, IN 46989-1001 Introduction Since the early nineteenth century the Indiana landscape has undergone a massive transformation (Jackson 1997). In the pre-settlement period, Indiana was an almost unbroken blanket of forests, prairies, and wetlands. Much of the land was cleared, plowed, or drained for lumber, the raising of crops, and a range of urban and industrial activities. Indiana’s native biota is now restricted to relatively small and often isolated tracts across the State. This fragmentation and reduction of the State’s biological diversity has challenged Hoosiers to look carefully at how to monitor further changes within our remnant natural communities and how to effectively conserve and even restore many of these valuable places within our State. To meet this monitoring, conservation, and restoration challenge, one needs to develop a variety of appropriate analytical tools. Ideally these techniques should be simple to learn and apply, give consistent results between different observers, and be repeatable. Floristic Assessment, which includes metrics such as the Floristic Quality Index (FQI) and Mean C values, has gained wide acceptance among environmental scientists and decision-makers, land stewards, and restoration ecologists in Indiana’s neighboring states and regions: Illinois (Taft et al. 1997), Michigan (Herman et al. 1996), Missouri (Ladd 1996), and Wisconsin (Bernthal 2003) as well as northern Ohio (Andreas 1993) and southern Ontario (Oldham et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 28, 1996 / Proposed Rules
    7596 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 40 / Wednesday, February 28, 1996 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR appointment in the Regional Offices SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: listed below. Fish and Wildlife Service Information relating to particular taxa Background in this notice may be obtained from the The Endangered Species Act (Act) of 50 CFR Part 17 Service's Endangered Species 1973, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 1531 et Coordinator in the lead Regional Office seq.) requires the Service to identify Endangered and Threatened Wildlife identified for each taxon and listed species of wildlife and plants that are and Plants; Review of Plant and below: endangered or threatened, based on the Animal Taxa That Are Candidates for Region 1. California, Commonwealth best available scientific and commercial Listing as Endangered or Threatened of the Northern Mariana Islands, information. As part of the program to Species Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Pacific accomplish this, the Service has AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Territories of the United States, and maintained a list of species regarded as Interior. Washington. candidates for listing. The Service maintains this list for a variety of ACTION: Notice of review. Regional Director (TE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Eastside Federal reasons, includingÐto provide advance SUMMARY: In this notice the Fish and Complex, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue, knowledge of potential listings that Wildlife Service (Service) presents an Portland, Oregon 97232±4181 (503± could affect decisions of environmental updated list of plant and animal taxa 231±6131). planners and developers; to solicit input native to the United States that are Region 2.
    [Show full text]