DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Evalutation for The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Evalutation for The BIOLOGICAL EVALUTATION FOR THE CRAWLEY BRANCH SOUTHERN YELLOW PINE RESTORATION PROJECT PISGAH NATIONAL FOREST GRANDFATHER RANGER DISTRICT CALDWELL COUNTY, NC Contact Person: Christopher L. Williams Pisgah Zone Wildlife Biologist Grandfather RD Nebo, NC 28761 (828) 652-2144 email: [email protected] July 10, 2017 ABSTRACT: Based on the findings contained within this biological evaluation, the Crawley Branch southern yellow pine restoration project proposal will not affect any proposed, threatened, or endangered, aquatic, botanical, or terrestrial wildlife species, or habitat. Consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service is not required. I. INTRODUCTION A. Biological Evaluation/Assessment As a result of a recent court decision, Forest Plan Amendment #14 and the Region 8 Supplement to Forest Service Manual 2670 are no longer in effect. This Biological Evaluation (BE) for the Crawley Branch southern yellow pine restoration project follows the process used to decide when to inventory for federally proposed, threatened, endangered, or Regional Forester’s sensitive species (PETS) that is consistent with the requirement found in the Vegetation Management EIS for the Appalachian Mountains. B. Purpose and Format The purpose of this BE is to provide the decision maker with relevant biological information as to the possible effects and impacts this proposal may have to PETS. This BE documents the possible biological effects and impacts of the proposed action activities known as the Crawley Branch southern yellow pine restoration project. A detailed description of the proposal is disclosed in the Decision Memo. A list of project design features and monitoring is disclosed in the Decision Memo as well. A list of definitions, including analysis areas is located at the end of this BE. C. Location The proposed activities are located in Caldwell County, near the community of Collettsville, NC. Detailed maps can be found in the project record. D. Proposed Action The Grandfather Ranger District proposes to: Treatment 1. Non-commercially thin approximately 77 acres to improve health and vigor of existing Southern Yellow Pine trees and improve species composition and structure. Treatment 2. Intermediate thinning of approximately 67 acres of mature forests impacted by SPB or at risk to SPB attack. Commercial thinning and controlled burning will improve these stands by improving species composition and health and vigor of existing SYP trees, but more so improve the structure of these forest to facilitate frequent fire. Treatment 3. Selection thinning of approximately 135 acres of mature forests impacted by SPB or at risk to SPB attack. Commercial thinning and controlled burning will improve these stands by improving species composition, structure, and health and vigor of existing SYP trees. Treatment 4. Seed Tree with Reserves of approximately 167 acres of potential Southern Yellow pine forests to restore SYP forest types through commercial two-aged regeneration harvest, planting, site preparation, and controlled burning. Regeneration and species conversion will provide sustainable populations of southern yellow pines, contribute to the health and vigor of these forests at a landscape-level, and provide for structure. Regular fire disturbance can maintain key ecosystem components, control competition, and ensure successful establishment of southern pine in these stands where SYP is underrepresented. Treatment 5. Prescribed burning of approximately 384 acres of southern pine forest types to restore structure and key ecosystem components and move species composition toward the desired condition. Table 1. Proposed actions by compartment and stand Forest Stand Basal Proposed Prescribed Additional Acres/ Location Access Type Age Area Action Burning Information Size Regenerate/ White Pine- Site Commercial Stand 058- Selection 1,044 ft. of Upland 82 99 Preparation* Harvest/Herbicide/ 124** 02 Thin, plant, temporary road Hardwood Mechanical Release release Forest Stand Basal Proposed Prescribed Additional Acres/ Location Access Type Age Area Action Burning Information Size Chestnut Commercial Stands Oak-Black Regenerate, Site 1,1063 ft. of 70 118 Harvest/Herbicide/ 13 058-04 Oak-Scarlet plant, release Preparation* temporary road Mechanical Release Oak Stand 058- Virginia Stand Broadcast 24 105 Chain Saw 19 N/A 12 pine Improvement Burn Stand 058- Selection Broadcast 1,042 ft.*** . of Pitch pine 86 113 Commercial Thin 49 13 Thin, Plant Burn temporary road Stand 058- Selection Broadcast 304 ft. of Pitch pine 67 136 Commercial Thin 20 18 Thin, plant Burn* temporary road Regenerate/ Mixed Commercial Stand 058- Selection Site 970 ft. of Upland 87 139 Harvest/Herbicide/ 40 25 Thin, plant, Preparation* temporary road Hardwoods Mechanical Release release White Pine- Stand 058- Stand Broadcast N. Red 41 58 Chain Saw 30 N/A 29 Improvement Burn* Oak-W. Ash Yellow Stand 058- Poplar- Stand Broadcast 58 82 Chain Saw 28 N/A 30 White Oak- Improvement Burn* N. Red Oak Stand 062- Selection Broadcast 1,042 ft.*** . of White Pine 57 153 Commercial Thin 35 05 Thin, plant Burn temporary road White Pine- Stand 062- Prescribed Broadcast N. Red 75 99 Chain Saw 29 N/A 06 Burning Burn Oak-W. Ash Forest Stand Basal Proposed Prescribed Additional Acres/ Location Access Type Age Area Action Burning Information Size White Pine- Stand 062- Prescribed Broadcast N. Red 78 138 Chain Saw 41 N/A 07 Burning Burn Oak-W. Ash Comp 58 and 62 Prescribed Broadcast 384 N/A (various Burning Burn Stands) Chestnut Designate Stand 062- oak/pine Small Patch N/A N/A 67 N/A 10 oak heath Old Growth *Broadcast burning as a part of the Crawley Branch burn unit, under the Grandfather Restoration Burns Environmental Analysis. ** These stands will be treated with a combination of regeneration harvesting and selection thinning to achieve the desired stand conditions without exceeding the 40-acre Forest Plan limit on regeneration unit size. *** Temporary road will access both Stand 62-05 and Stand 58-13 II. METHOD OF EVALUATION AND SURVEYS Potentially affected/impacted PETS species and habitat were identified from the following sources (sensitive species list dated January 28, 2016) in accordance with the 1994 Forest Plan for the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (Amendment 5) and the 1989 Vegetation Management Environmental Assessment: 1) Information on PETS species and their habitat on the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests were obtained from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) occurrence records. 2) Surveys completed for this analysis, past surveys, and analysis for projects within or near the analysis areas. 3) Individuals both in the public and private sector who are knowledgeable of the area and its biota. The results from the above sources yielded seven PETS or FC species potentially occurring in the analyis areas (see Tables 2, 3, 5, and 6); this includes two PETS or FC plant species, one PETS or FC aquatic specie, and two PETS or FC wildlife species. All other PETS species for the Nantahala and Pisgah NF were not carried forward in this analysis since they are not expected to occur within the biologic analysis or activity areas due to lack of habitat or records. Therefore, this proposal would not affect/impact these species. III. SURVEY INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS A. Botanical Surveys Information Sources & Species Considered Federally Listed Species All federally threatened or endangered plant species that occur or could occur on the Pisgah and Nantahala National Forests were initially considered in this analysis. An official species list was requested from the local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office and includes species and critical habitat that should be considered under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. (US Fish & Wildlife Service, 2017). Plant species with formal listing status (Threatened or Endangered) and current record status are listed below in Table 1. There is no critical habitat in the project area for plant species. Species with a designation of “Federal Species of Concern” (an informal term) may be discussed in the section of this report that considers Sensitive and Forest Concern plant species. Table 1. Federally Threatened and Endangered Plant Species Known from Caldwell County Considered for Analysis on the CBSYPR Project Taxonomic Scientific Name Common Name Federal Habitat Description & CBSYPR Project Group Status1 Pisgah NF Area Analysis2 Occurrences Vascular Hexastylis naniflora Dwarf-flowered T Rich, deciduous wood 3: No suitable Plant Heartleaf bluffs habitat present (No known occurrences on the Pisgah NF) Vascular Liatris helleri Heller’s Blazing Star T High Elevation Rocky 3: No suitable Plant Summit, Montane habitat Acidic Cliff (Documented on the Pisgah NF) Vascular Hedyotis purpurea var. Roan Mountain Bluet E High Elevation Rocky 3: No suitable Plant montana Summit, Grassy Bald habitat (Documented on the Pisgah NF) 1Federal Status (T=Threatened; E=Endangered) 2CBSYPR Project Area Analysis 1. Requires further analysis, known occurrences and suitable habitat for the species occurs in the proposed action area. 2. Requires further analysis; suitable habitat occurs in the analysis area (but no known occurrences). 3. Dropped, the analysis area is within range of species, but there is no suitable habitat within the proposed activity area. 4. Dropped; historic record, plant is likely extirpated. The CBSYPR project area does not contain
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Nc Basinwide Water Quality Management and Weti.And Restoration Plans Include Nhp Information
    1999 Division of Parks and Recreation, MSC 1615, Raleigh, NC 27699-1615 NOTES FROM THE NORTH CAROLINA NATURAL HERITAGE PROGRAM NC BASINWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND WETI.AND RESTORATION PLANS INCLUDE NHP INFORMATION The biodiversity in aquatic the rare species and high-quality aquatic, riparian, and wetland habitats ecosystems of the southeastern wetland and riverine natural in each river basin and provides this United States has become a hot topic communities in each of the state's 17 information to the DWQ. This in ·tonservation. The diversity of river basins. This information is information highlights aquatic and animal and plant species living in the included in Basinwide Water Quality wetland natur,al areas as well as streams, rivers, and lakes of the Management Plans prepared by DWQ clusters of important terrestrial sites. Southeast has been the subject of for each river basin and associated To date, Natural Heritage Program recent studies by The Nature wetlands. information has been incorporated Conservancy and the World Wildlife Basinwide management is a into the following basinwide plans: Fund and has been brought to the watershed-based approach to water Broad, Catawba, Chowan, Hiwassee, attention of people worldwide by quality protection. A basinwide plan Lumber, Neuse, Pasquotank, colorful articles in National Geographic is prepared for each river basin in Savannah, Tar-Pamlico, and Yadkin magazine. Yet, while the plentiful order to communicate the state's rivers. As DWQ develops plans for array of species that inhabit freshwater rationale, approaches, and other river basins, the Natural ecosystems in the Southeast is recommended long-term water quality Heritage Program will be sure to celebrated, the survival of many of management strategies for each basin continue to communicate the these species is dependent on to policy makers, the regulated important relationsh j_e between water maintaining or improving water quality community, and the general public.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacolet Area Conservancy with Supplemental Funding from the N.C
    INVENTORY OF THE NATURAL AREAS OF THE PACOLET AREA (Polk County, North Carolina and upper Greenville and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina) by Douglas A. Rayner, Ph.D. Department of Biology Wofford College Spartanburg, South Carolina 29303-3663 December, 1994 SPONSORED BY: Pacolet Area Conservancy with supplemental funding from the N.C. Recreation and Natural Heritage Trust Fund ADMINISTERED BY: Conservation Trust for North Carolina P.O. Box 33333, Raleigh, N.C. 27636-3333 for the N.C. Natural Heritage Program N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation N.C. Department for Environment, Health and Natural Resources P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 and the Pacolet Area Conservancy P.O. Box 310, Columbus, N.C. 28722-0310 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The overriding concern of anyone preparing an acknowledgments is that someone will be left out. So, at the start I'll thank everyone and every organization who provided assistance and apologize if I've offended anyone for not mentioning them more specifically. The Pacolet Area Conservancy, as the primary source of the vision and funds that enabled this project to be undertaken, deserves special praise for their foresight in seeing the need for such a project. The citizens of the Pacolet Area and the state of N.C. and S.C. will reap the benefits of the PAC's past, present, and future efforts. I also want to thank the PAC executive, directors, Melissa Warren and Karen Connor, and the PAC board of directors, especially Bud Slater, for their patience in enduring the unforeseen delays that turned a 2-year project into a 4-year project.
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Generating Plants
    PNNL-14468 Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Generating Plants M. R. Sackschewsky January 2004 Prepared for the License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by BATTELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 PNNL-14468 Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Generating Plants M. R. Sackschewsky January 2004 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, and related implementing regulations of the jurisdictional federal agencies, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Hexastylis Naniflora)
    1 IDENTIFICATION PAGE FY 2012 NCDOT Research Program RESEARCH PROPOSAL Proposal ID 2111 Proposal Title Development of molecular and morphological tools to circumscribe and identify the Dwarf Flowered Heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) Period of Performance August 2011-July 2013 Budget by Academic 2011-12 budget = $129,008.00 Year 2012-13 budget = $100,796.00 including Total Total budget = $229,804.00 Department & Biology University Conducting Appalachian State University Work Principal Investigator Zack Murrell Department of Biology Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 Phone: 828-262-2674 FAX: 828-262-2127 Email: [email protected] Matt Estep Other Key Researcher(s) Department of Biology Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 Jackie Wagner 13 Romney St., Charleston, SC 29403 Joe McKenna Department of Biology Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 2 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. RP 2012-17 …leave blank… …leave blank… 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Development of molecular and morphological tools to February 15, 2015 circumscribe and identify the Dwarf Flowered Heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) 6. Performing Organization Code …leave blank… 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Zack E. Murrell, Jackie Wagner, Matt Estep …leave blank… 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Department of Biology …leave blank… Appalachian State University Boone, NC 11. Contract or Grant No. …leave blank… 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered North Carolina Department of Transportation Final Report Research and Analysis Group 1 South Wilmington Street Aug 16, 2011-Aug 15, 2014 Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 14.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to the Southern Blue Ridge Ecoregional Conservation Plan
    SOUTHERN BLUE RIDGE ECOREGIONAL CONSERVATION PLAN Summary and Implementation Document March 2000 THE NATURE CONSERVANCY and the SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN FOREST COALITION Southern Blue Ridge Ecoregional Conservation Plan Summary and Implementation Document Citation: The Nature Conservancy and Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition. 2000. Southern Blue Ridge Ecoregional Conservation Plan: Summary and Implementation Document. The Nature Conservancy: Durham, North Carolina. This document was produced in partnership by the following three conservation organizations: The Nature Conservancy is a nonprofit conservation organization with the mission to preserve plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. The Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition is a nonprofit organization that works to preserve, protect, and pass on the irreplaceable heritage of the region’s National Forests and mountain landscapes. The Association for Biodiversity Information is an organization dedicated to providing information for protecting the diversity of life on Earth. ABI is an independent nonprofit organization created in collaboration with the Network of Natural Heritage Programs and Conservation Data Centers and The Nature Conservancy, and is a leading source of reliable information on species and ecosystems for use in conservation and land use planning. Photocredits: Robert D. Sutter, The Nature Conservancy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This first iteration of an ecoregional plan for the Southern Blue Ridge is a compendium of hypotheses on how to conserve species nearest extinction, rare and common natural communities and the rich and diverse biodiversity in the ecoregion. The plan identifies a portfolio of sites that is a vision for conservation action, enabling practitioners to set priorities among sites and develop site-specific and multi-site conservation strategies.
    [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]
  • Chestnut Oak Forest (White Pine Subtype)
    CHESTNUT OAK FOREST (WHITE PINE SUBTYPE) Concept: The White Pine Subtype encompasses lower elevation Quercus montana forests that have a significant component of Pinus strobus, which may range from a substantial minority to codominant in the canopy. The lower strata in this subtype appear to overlap the less extreme range of variation of the Dry Heath Subtype and the Herb Subtype. Distinguishing Features: Chestnut Oak Forest (White Pine Subtype) is distinguished from all other communities by the combination of Quercus montana with Pinus strobus, without a component of Quercus alba. The White Pine Subtype subtype should only be used where white pine is believed to be naturally present, not for forests where it has been planted or where it likely spread from nearby plantings. Forests with a more mesophytic composition, such as the forests of Quercus rubra and Pinus strobus with Rhododendron maximum that occur around Linville Falls, are treated as the Mesic Subtype. Synonyms: Pinus strobus - Quercus (coccinea, prinus) / (Gaylussacia ursina, Vaccinium stamineum) Forest (CEGL007519). Ecological Systems: Southern Appalachian Oak Forest (CES202.886). Sites: The White Pine Subtype occurs on open slopes and spur ridges. It often is in steep gorges or in the most rugged foothill ranges. Most example are at 1000-2500 feet elevation, but a few are reported upward to 4000 feet or even higher. Soils: Soils are generally Typic Dystrochrepts, especially Chestnut and Edneyville, less often Typic Hapludults such as Tate or Cowee. Hydrology: Sites are dry and well drained but may be somewhat less stressful because of topographic sheltering. Vegetation: The forest canopy is dominated by a mix of Pinus strobus and Quercus montana, occasionally with Quercus coccinea or Quercus rubra codominant.
    [Show full text]
  • Federally-Listed Wildlife Species
    Assessment for the Nantahala and Pisgah NFs March 2014 Federally-Listed Wildlife Species Ten federally-endangered (E) or threatened (T) wildlife species are known to occur on or immediately adjacent to the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests (hereafter, the Nantahala and Pisgah NFs). These include four small mammals, two terrestrial invertebrates, three freshwater mussels, and one fish (Table 1). Additionally, two endangered species historically occurred on or adjacent to the Forest, but are considered extirpated, or absent, from North Carolina and are no longer tracked by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (Table 1). Table 1. Federally-listed wildlife species known to occur or historically occurring on or immediately adjacent to the Nantahala and Pisgah National Forests. Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Small Mammals Carolina northern flying Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered squirrel Gray myotis Myotis grisescens Endangered Virginia big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii Endangered virginianus Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis Endangered* Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered Terrestrial Invertebrates Spruce-fir moss spider Microhexura montivaga Endangered noonday globe Patera clarki Nantahala Threatened Freshwater Mussels Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered Little-wing pearlymussel Pegius fabula Endangered Cumberland bean Villosa trabilis Endangered Spotfin chub Erimonax monachus Threatened Species Considered Extirpated From North Carolina American burying beetle Nicrophorous americanus Endangered Eastern cougar Puma concolor cougar Endangered *Pending final listing following the 12-month finding published in the Federal Register, October 2, 2013. Additionally, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is addressing petitions to federally list two aquatic species known to occur on or immediately adjacent to Nantahala and Pisgah NFs: eastern hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis alleganiensis), a large aquatic salamander, and sicklefin redhorse (Moxostoma species 2), a fish.
    [Show full text]
  • Addendum to the Guide to the Natural Communities of the Delaware Estuary
    ADDENDUM TO THE UIDE TO THE ATURAL OMMUNITIES G N C OF THE DELAWARE ESTUARY SEPTEMBER0 2009 Citation: Largay, E. and L. Sneddon. 2009. Addendum to the Guide to the Ecological Systems and Vegetation Communities of the Delaware Estuary. NatureServe. Arlington, Virginia. Partnership for the Delaware Estuary, Report #09-XX. 112 pp. PDE Report No. 09-XX Copyright © 2009 NatureServe COVER PHOTOS Top L: Overwash Dunes, photo from Delaware Natural Heritage Program Top R: Coastal Plain Muck Pondshore, photo by Kathleen Strakosch Walz, New Jersey Natural Heritage Program Bottom L: Dry Oak Hickory Forest, photo by Tony Davis, Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program Bottom R: Inland Dune and Ridge Forest/Woodland, Kathleen Strakosch Walz, New Jersey Natural Heritage Program ADDENDUM TO THE GUIDE TO THE NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF THE DELAWARE ESTUARY Ery Largay Lesley Sneddon September 2009 Acknowledgements: This work was made possible through funding from the Delaware Estuary Program (EPA 320 Funding). Kristin Snow and Mary Russo from NatureServe provided essential data management services to develop this report and report format. Robert Coxe and Bill McAvoy from the Delaware Natural Heritage Program, Kathleen Strakosch Walz from the New Jersey Natural Heritage Program, Tony Davis from the Pennsylvania Natural Heritage Program, Linda Kelly and Karl Anderson, independent botanists, provided ecological expertise, energy and insight. Mark Anderson and Charles Ferree from The Nature Conservancy developed ecological systems maps to accompany this work. Danielle Kreeger, Laura Whalen, and Martha-Maxwell Doyle from the Partnership for the Delaware Estuary provided support and guidance throughout this project. We thank everyone who helped us with this effort.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Bulletin Service, Washington, D.C
    May 1989 Vol. XIV No. 5 Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Technical Bulletin Service, Washington, D.C. 20240 Agriculture, Wetlands, and Endangered Species: The Food Security Act of 1985 Jana Nelson Food Security Act Coordinator Region 1 Federal, State, and local agencies, mid-1970's, however, only 99 million included a number of important conserva- working in cooperation with landowners acres (40 million ha) remained. Losses tion measures in the Food Security Act. and non-profit organizations, are reaping in some areas have been even more The five main provisions that address increasingly significant benefits for agri- severe, with California having lost over 90 wildlife habitat on agricultural lands are culture, wetlands, and wildlife, including percent of its historical natural wetlands. known as Swampbuster, Sodbuster, Con- endangered species. Valuable oppor- The Service estimates that about 450,000 servation Reserve Program, Section 1314 tunities for building closer coordination additional acres (182,000 ha) are still dis- conservation easements, and Section between agricultural and wildlife interests appearing each year nationwide. Over 87 1318 debt restructure easements. (See were made possible through the conser- percent of wetland losses in recent years BULLETIN Vol. XIII, No. 2, for details.} vation provisions of the Food Security Act can be attributed to agricultural practices. Related programs, such as the Agri- of 1985 (also known as "the Farm Bill"). Over 20 percent of listed species in the cultural Credit Act of 1987, Executive The fate of wetlands and endangered United States, including the least Bell's Orders 11988 and 11990 for the protec- species is closely linked to agriculture.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Cowpens National Battlefield Natural Resource Report NPS/ COWP/NRR—2012/521
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Cowpens National Battlefield Natural Resource Report NPS/ COWP/NRR—2012/521 ON THE COVER Main Entrance Photograph courtesy of Cowpens National Battlefield Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Cowpens National Battlefield Natural Resource Report NPS/ COWP/NRR—2012/521 Luke Worsham, Gary Sundin, Nathan P. Nibbelink, Michael T. Mengak, Gary Grossman Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources University of Georgia 180 E. Green St. Athens, GA 30602 April 2012 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received informal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data. Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S.
    [Show full text]