DOCSLIB.ORG

2016 Texas Aquatic Mammal EA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2016 Texas Aquatic Mammal EA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Final) AQUATIC MAMMAL DAMAGE MANAGEMENT IN TEXAS UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE (APHIS) WILDLIFE SERVICES (WS) In Cooperation With: TEXAS AGRILIFE EXTENSION-WILDLIFE SERVICES, THE TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM October 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................................. iii CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 NEED FOR ACTION ...................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 SCOPE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................................. 14 1.4 RELATIONSHIP OF THIS EA TO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS ................... 17 1.5 AUTHORITY OF FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES ........................................................... 17 1.6 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND STATUTES ....................................................................... 19 1.7 DECISIONS TO BE MADE ......................................................................................................... 23 CHAPTER 2: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ISSUES 2.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................................................... 23 2.2 ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH AQUATIC MAMMAL DAMAGE MANAGEMENT .............. 26 2.3 ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT NOT IN DETAIL WITH RATIONALE ...................................... 32 CHAPTER 3: ALTERNATIVES 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................ 38 3.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED IN DETAIL .................................. 47 3.3 STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR DAMAGE MANAGEMENT ...................... 52 3.4 ADDITIONAL STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES SPECIFIC TO THE ISSUES ...... 53 CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES FOR ISSUES ANALYZED IN DETAIL .................. 56 4.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 BY ISSUE ................................................ 102 CHAPTER 5: LIST OF PREPARERS, REVIEWERS, AND PERSONS CONSULTED 5.1 LIST OF PREPARERS................................................................................................................ 110 5.2 LIST OF REVIEWERS AND PERSONS CONSULTED .......................................................... 110 LIST OF APPENDICES: APPENDIX A – LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................. A-1 APPENDIX B – METHODS AVAILABLE FOR RESOLVING OR PREVENTING AQUATIC MAMMAL DAMAGE IN TEXAS .............................................................................. B-1 APPENDIX C – FEDERAL AND STATE LIST OF THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES IN TEXAS .......................................................................................................................... C-1 APPENDIX D - CRITERIA FOR BEAVER DAM BREACHING/REMOVAL .................................... D-1 ii ACRONYMS AMDUCA Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CWA Clean Water Act EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FLIR Forward Looking Infrared FR Federal Register FY Fiscal Year IC Intracardiac IV Intravenous MOU Memorandum of Understanding NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NWP Nationwide Permit NWRC National Wildlife Research Center PL Public Law SOP Standard Operating Procedure T&E Threatened and Endangered TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality TDA Texas Department of Agriculture TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department TWDMA Texas Wildlife Damage Management Association TWSP Texas Wildlife Services Program USC United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Services WS Wildlife Services iii CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 PURPOSE The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Wildlife Services (WS) program, in cooperation with the Texas A&M University System, through the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, continues to receive requests for assistance or anticipates receiving requests for assistance to resolve or prevent damage associated with beaver (Castor canadensis), muskrats (Ondatra zibethicus), nutria (Myocastor coypus), and river otter (Lontra canadensis). This document will collectively refer to these species as aquatic mammals. The WS1 program is the federal agency responsible for providing federal leadership with managing conflicts with animals. Pursuant to the Texas Health and Safety Code, the Texas A&M University System, through the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, and the WS program have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)2 to conduct a cooperative program to alleviate damage caused by animals. In addition, the Texas Wildlife Damage Management Association (TWDMA), which consists of local cooperative groups, including county governments, private associations, and/or individuals, also signed the MOU. This document will refer to the cooperative program created by the MOU as the Texas Wildlife Services Program (TWSP), which includes the federal WS program, the Texas A&M AgriLife Extension Service, and the TWDMA. In Texas, beaver, muskrat, nutria, and otter are classified as furbearers. Furbearers are protected by State law and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) is responsible for management of those species. Under State law, private landowners or their lessees, public entities, or others can address furbearers when those species are a nuisance or causing damage. The TWSP is an agency in Texas that responds to requests for assistance associated with aquatic mammals. However, the TWSP works with TPWD to assist in providing data on harvest so that they can determine management objectives for the different species of aquatic mammals. The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to evaluate the cumulative effects of potential actions conducted by the TWSP to manage damage and threats of damage associated with aquatic mammal species. This EA will evaluate previous and anticipated future actions taken by the TWSP to address damage caused by aquatic mammals in order to determine if those effects could have a significant impact on the human environment. The TWSP previously developed an EA and a supplement to that EA that evaluated the effects of activities conducted by the TWSP to manage damage and threats of damage caused by aquatic mammals in the State. Based on the analyses in that EA and the supplement to the EA, WS signed a Decision and Finding of No Significant Impact for the proposed action alternative. The proposed action alternative implemented a program that integrates a variety of methods. The TWSP is preparing this EA to: 1) facilitate planning, 2) promote interagency coordination, 3) streamline program management, 4) clearly communicate to the public the analysis of individual and cumulative impacts of proposed activities, and 5) determine if there would be any potentially significant or cumulative effects from the alternative approaches developed to meet the need for action. Since this EA will re-evaluate activities conducted under the previous EA, this analysis and the outcome of the Decision issued based on the analyses in this EA will supersede the previous EA that addressed managing damage caused by aquatic mammals. The analyses contained in this EA are based on information derived from WS’ Management Information 1The WS program is authorized to protect agriculture and other resources from damage caused by animals through the Act of March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468; 7 USC 426-426b) as amended, and the Act of December 22, 1987 (101 Stat. 1329-331, 7 USC 426c). 2The MOU also allows for the sharing of direct operating costs between the entities associated with providing assistance. 1 System, published documents (see Appendix A), interagency consultations, and public involvement. This EA will analyze several alternative approaches to address the need for action and assist in determining if the proposed management of damage associated with aquatic mammals could have a significant impact on the environment for both people and other organisms. This EA will also document and inform the public of the environmental consequences that could occur from implementing the alternatives to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In addition, the TWSP will use this EA to coordinate efforts associated with meeting the need for action. The TWSP will make this EA available to the public for review and comment prior to the issuance of a Decision3. 1.2 NEED FOR ACTION Some species of wildlife have adapted to and have thrived in human altered habitats. Those species, in particular, are often responsible for the majority of conflicts between people and wildlife. Those conflicts often lead people to request assistance with reducing damage
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan
    Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan March 2008 Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan BEXAR COUNTY KARST INVERTEBRATES DRAFT RECOVERY PLAN Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico March 2008 Approved: ___DRAFT_______________________________________ Regional Director, Southwest Region Date U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Concur: __DRAFT____________________________________________ Executive Director Date Texas Parks and Wildlife Department ii Bexar County Karst Invertebrates Draft Recovery Plan DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that the best available science indicates are necessary to recover or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), but are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, state agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans are guidance and planning documents only. Identification of an action to be implemented by any private or public party does not create a legal obligation beyond existing legal requirements. Nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment or requirement that any Federal agency obligate or pay funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act (U.S.C. 1341) or any other law or regulation. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the Service. They represent the official position of the Service only after the plan has been signed by the Regional Director as approved.
    [Show full text]
  • Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List
    Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List Associated Tables The Texas Priority Species List……………..733 Introduction For many years the management and conservation of wildlife species has focused on the individual animal or population of interest. Many times, directing research and conservation plans toward individual species also benefits incidental species; sometimes entire ecosystems. Unfortunately, there are times when highly focused research and conservation of particular species can also harm peripheral species and their habitats. Management that is focused on entire habitats or communities would decrease the possibility of harming those incidental species or their habitats. A holistic management approach would potentially allow species within a community to take care of themselves (Savory 1988); however, the study of particular species of concern is still necessary due to the smaller scale at which individuals are studied. Until we understand all of the parts that make up the whole can we then focus more on the habitat management approach to conservation. Species Conservation In terms of species diversity, Texas is considered the second most diverse state in the Union. Texas has the highest number of bird and reptile taxon and is second in number of plants and mammals in the United States (NatureServe 2002). There have been over 600 species of bird that have been identified within the borders of Texas and 184 known species of mammal, including marine species that inhabit Texas’ coastal waters (Schmidly 2004). It is estimated that approximately 29,000 species of insect in Texas take up residence in every conceivable habitat, including rocky outcroppings, pitcher plant bogs, and on individual species of plants (Riley in publication).
    [Show full text]
  • Meso-Mammal Cave Use and North American Porcupine
    MESO-MAMMAL CAVE USE AND NORTH AMERICAN PORCUPINE HABITAT USE IN CENTRAL TEXAS A Dissertation by ANDREA ELISA MONTALVO Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Chair of Committee, Roel R. Lopez Committee Members, Nova J. Silvy Susan M. Cooper Rusty A. Feagin Head of Department, Michael P. Masser May 2017 Major Subject: Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences Copyright 2017 Andrea Elisa Montalvo ABSTRACT Meso-mammals are frequent cave visitors whose role in cave ecology is poorly understood. Understanding meso-mammal cave use is essential because caves are often managed for United States federally endangered, cave-obligate arthropods. My objectives for this study were to quantify annual meso-mammal cave visitation, determine behaviors of meso-mammals while in the caves, to develop multinomial regression to determine which variables best differentiate caves use by each species, and to determine how North American porcupines incorporate caves into their home range and habitat use. North American porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum) were the most common cave visitor (64%), followed by raccoons (Procyon lotor; 14%) and Virginia opossums (Didelphis virginiana; 10%). These results are noteworthy because central Texas caves were historically associated with raccoons and the additional nutrient inputs of North American porcupines could facilitate replacement of cave-obligate species by more competitive, or predatory, terrestrial species. Videos recorded in cave passages showed North American porcupines used caves for denning and grooming, while Virginia opossums used caves for feeding. The strongest multinomial model showed that, compared to North American porcupine, raccoons and Virginia opossums had greater odds of using caves with gates (2.36, 4.10, respectively) and pit entrances (6.11, 2.23, respectively).
    [Show full text]
  • Rbxieticanjuscum
    RbXietican1ovitatesJuscum PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY CENTRAL PARK WEST AT 79TH STREET, NEW YORK, N. Y. 10024 NUMBER 2539 APRIL 24, I974 Revision of Rhadine LeConte (Coleoptera, Carabidae) I. The subterranea Group BY THOMAS C. BARR, JR.1 ABSTRACT The subterranea group of Rhadine LeConte includes 11 species, five of which are regarded as polytypic. The group is restricted to limestone caves in central Texas, and all its species are troglobites. Species and subspecies treated are: subterranea subterranea (Van Dyke), new status; subterranea mitchelli, new subspecies; russelli, new species; noctivaga, new species; austinica, new species; speca speca (Barr), new status; speca gentilis, new subspecies; speca crinicollis, new subspecies; exilis (Barr and Lawrence); persephone, new species; tenebrosa tenebrosa (Barr), new status; tenebrosa mckenziei, new subspecies; insolita, new species; infernalis infernalis (Barr and Lawrence); infernalis ewersi (Barr); koepkei koepkei (Barr), new status; koepkei privata, new subspecies. Keys are provided for determining (a) species groups of Rhadine and (b) species and subspecies of the subterranea group. Rhadine LeConte includes approximately 60 species, all but three of which occur from the Great Plains westward to California and south to Oaxaca, Mexico. Members of this exclusively North American genus inhabit caves, cellars, mammal burrows, and crevices in rock piles. Eleven species are microphthalmous, cave obligate (troglobitic) forms found in the Balcones escarpment region of central Texas. These constitute an 1 Research Associate, Department of Entomology, the American Museum of Natural History; Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington. ISSN 0003-0082 2 AMERICAN MUSEUM NOVITATES NO. 2539 apparently monophyletic assemblage, the subterranea group, which is the subject of the present paper.
    [Show full text]
  • SEP-HCP Conservation Plan
    FINAL FINAL NOVEMBER 13, 2015 BOWMAN PROJECT NO. 005520-01-001 SOUTHERN EDWARDS PLATEAU HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN PREPARED FOR COUNTY OF BEXAR INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES DEPARTMENT 233 N. PECOS, SUITE 420 SAN ANTONIO, TX 78207 PREPARED BY BOWMAN CONSULTING GROUP, LTD. 3101 BEE CAVE ROAD, SUITE 100 AUSTIN, TX 78746 WITH JACKSON WALKER LLP ZARA ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC WENDELL DAVIS AND ASSOCIATES M.E. ALLISON & ASSOCIATES FINAL SOUTHERN EDWARDS PLATEAU HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN BOWMAN © 2015 PROJECT NO. 005520-01-001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WHAT IS THE SOUTHERN EDWARDS PLATEAU HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN? The Southern Edwards Plateau Habitat Conservation Plan (“SEP-HCP” or the “Plan”) is a way for Bexar County and the City of San Antonio (the “Permittees”) to assist with compliance of the Endangered Species Act. These compliance issues threaten the economic growth of the greater San Antonio region. The purposes of the SEP-HCP are to: (1) Promote regional conservation; (2) Provide support for Camp Bullis; (3) Involve local stakeholders in conservation planning; (4) Streamline endangered species permitting; (5) Implement locally appropriate and cost-effective permitting and conservation strategies; and (6) Leverage available resources. Upon approval of the SEP-HCP by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the “Service”), a 30-year Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) would be issued. The Permit would authorize a limited amount of “incidental taking” of nine federally listed endangered species (the “Covered Species”) within the jurisdictions of Bexar County and the City of San Antonio. In return, the SEP-HCP will promote the conservation of the Covered Species and related natural resources in Bexar County and other counties of the Southern Edwards Plateau.
    [Show full text]
  • San Antonio Water Systems Micron and Water Resources Integration Program Habitat Conservation Plan – Permit TE-36242C (Consultation No
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78758 (512) 490-0057 FAX (512) 490-0974 Memorandum To: Regional Director, Region 2, and Albuquerque, New Mexico Through: Assistant Regional Director, Ecological Services, Region 2, and Albuquerque, New Mexico From: Field Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, and Austin, Texas Subject: Biological and Conference Opinion for the San Antonio Water Systems Micron and Water Resources Integration Program Habitat Conservation Plan – Permit TE-36242C (Consultation No. 2016-F-0640) Enclosed is the biological and conference opinion for San Antonio Water System’s (SAWS) Micron and Water Resources Integration Program (WRIP) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse effects to five federally listed endangered species and one non-listed species from construction of water pipelines. These species include the endangered: Rhadine exilis (no common name), R. infernalis (no common name), Madla’s Cave meshweaver (Cicurina madla), Robber Baron Cave meshweaver (C. baronia), and Braken Bat Cave meshweaver (C. venii); and the non-listed C. loftini (no common name) The biological and conference opinion is based on the SAWS Micron and WRIP HCP and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Environmental Assessment prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, both dated November 2017; discussions with species experts; published and un-published literature available on the species of concern and related impacts; and other sources of information available to the Service. A complete administrative record of this consultation is available at the Austin Ecological Service Field Office.
    [Show full text]
  • Monsanto Petition (19-091-01P) for Determination of Nonregulated Status for Insect-Protected MON 88702 Cotton
    Monsanto Petition (19-091-01p) for Determination of Nonregulated Status for Insect-Protected MON 88702 Cotton OECD Unique Identifier: MON-887Ø2-4 Final Environmental Assessment December 2020 Agency Contact Cindy Eck Biotechnology Regulatory Services 4700 River Road USDA, APHIS Riverdale, MD 20737 In accordance with federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Information for Assessing the Status of the Tooth Cave Ground Beetle (Rhadine Persephone)
    STATUS OF THE TOOTH CAVE GROUND BEETLE TITLE PAGE Summary of Information for Assessing the Status of the Tooth Cave Ground Beetle (Rhadine persephone) 16 June 2005 HNTB CORPORATION JUNE 2005 STATUS OF THE TOOTH CAVE GROUND BEETLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarizes data for assessing the status of the Tooth Cave ground beetle (Rhadine persephone), a federally listed endangered species. Only the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) can determine the recovery and regulatory status of this species, and this report is intended as tool for assessing both. Data reviewed for this report were gleaned from USFWS files; additional information was obtained from the Mike Walsh (Texas Cave Conservancy), James R. Reddell (Texas Memorial Museum, The University of Texas as Austin), Mark Sanders (City of Austin), and Rose Farmer (Travis County). The Tooth Cave ground beetle was listed as a federally endangered species in 1988. Threats facing the species are associated primarily with human activities, especially urban development. In 1994 the USFWS prepared a Recovery Plan for this species and several other endangered karst invertebrate species. At that time the USFWS believed that the prospect for complete recovery and delisting of Tooth Cave ground beetles was uncertain. The Recovery Plan includes recovery criteria that should be met in order for Tooth Cave ground beetles to be considered for downlisting from endangered to threatened. The recovery criteria are intended to serve as recommendations and are not mandatory steps toward achieving downlisting or recovery. The recovery criteria include the recommendation that multiple karst fauna areas (KFAs) should be protected in each karst fauna region (KFR) within the species’ range.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 250/Wednesday, December 30
    Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 1998 / Proposed Rules 71855 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR during normal business hours at the of each cave visited during the study above address. and presents information obtained from Fish and Wildlife Service FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: invertebrate collections. Veni's (1994a) report delineates six 50 CFR Part 17 Alisa Shull, Supervisory Fish and Wildlife Biologist (see ADDRESSES karst areas (hereafter referred to as karst RIN 1018±AF33 section) (telephone 512/490±0057; fauna regions) within Bexar County. The facsimile 512/490±0974). karst fauna regions he discusses are Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Stone Oak, UTSA (University of Texas SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and Plants; Proposal to List Nine at San Antonio), Helotes, Government Bexar County, Texas Invertebrate Background Canyon, Culebra Anticline, and Alamo Species as Endangered Rhadine exilis and Rhadine infernalis Heights. The boundaries of these karst fauna regions are geological or AGENCY: were first collected in 1959 and Fish and Wildlife Service geographical features that may represent Interior. described by Barr and Lawrence (1960) as Agonum exile and Agonum infernale, obstructions to troglobite movement (on ACTION: Proposed rule. an evolutionary time scale) that have respectively. Barr (1974) assigned the resulted in the present-day distribution SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife species to the genus Rhadine. Batrisodes of endemic (restricted in distribution) Service, propose to list nine cave- venyivi was first collected in 1984 and karst invertebrates in the San Antonio dwelling invertebrates from Bexar described by Chandler (1992). Texella County, Texas as endangered species region. cokendolpheri was first collected in The harvestman Texella under the Endangered Species Act of 1982 and described in Ubick and Briggs 1973, as amended (Act).
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Karst Site Assessment, Camp Bullis, Texas: Maneuver Areas 8, 9, 10, and 11, and Southern Cantonment 144
    MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CONSERVATION OF RARE AND ENDANGERED KARST SPECIES, CAMP BULLIS, BEXAR AND COMAL COUNTIES, TEXAS by George Veni Ph.D., James R. Reddell, and James C. Cokendolpher Executive Summary Camp Bullis is a 113.3-km2 military training facility under the Fort Sam Houston Command. It is located in north-central Bexar County and southwestern Comal County. Camp Bullis’ mission is to provide field training and support for military activities in south Texas, including weapons training, field training and maneuvers, map and compass courses, parachute operations training, combat assault landing training, and field medical training. Soon after the now-listed species were petitioned for endangered listing, Camp Bullis initiated a series of cave and karst investigations that continue to the present in order to pro-actively evaluate the installation’s potential to contain the species and manage those species according to the best available scientific information (Veni and Elliott, 1994; Veni et al., 1995, 1996, 1998a, 1998b, 1999, 2000, 2002a, 2002b). To date, three of the species have been found on the installation, Cicurina (Cicurella) madla, Rhadine exilis, Rhadine infernalis. Additionally, one species on the State of Texas list of threatened species has been found, Eurycea tridentifera, plus 15 new or possibly new species known only from Camp Bullis. The presence of these listed and rare species of concern suggests that Camp Bullis has effectively managed its impact to the environment and these animals. This includes the potential impacts from the installation’s live fire ranges where one of the listed species is known to occur in five caves despite several decades of firearm use.
    [Show full text]
  • For Determination of Nonregulated Status for HB4 Soybean (Event IND- 00410-5) Genetically Engineered for Increased Yield and Resistance to Glufosinate-Ammonium
    Verdeca Petition (17-223-01p) for Determination of Nonregulated Status for HB4 Soybean (Event IND- 00410-5) Genetically Engineered for Increased Yield and Resistance to Glufosinate-Ammonium OECD Unique Identifier: IND-00410-5 Final Environmental Assessment May 2019 Agency Contact Cindy Eck Biotechnology Regulatory Services 4700 River Road USDA, APHIS Riverdale, MD 20737 Fax: (301) 734-8669 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’S TARGET Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Mention of companies or commercial products in this report does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture over others not mentioned. USDA neither guarantees nor warrants the standard of any product mentioned. Product names are mentioned solely to report factually on available data and to provide specific information. This publication reports research involving pesticides. All uses of pesticides must be registered by appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can be recommended. i ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Evidence That Invasive Species Are a Significant Contributor to the Decline Or Loss of Threatened Species?
    What is the evidence that invasive species are a significant contributor to the decline or loss of threatened species? Philip D. Roberts1* ([email protected]), Hilda Diaz-Soltero2 ([email protected]), David J. Hemming1 ([email protected]), Martin J. Parr1 ([email protected]), Richard H. Shaw3 ([email protected]), Nicola Wakefield1 ([email protected]), Holly J. Wright1 ([email protected]), and Arne B.R. Witt4 ([email protected]). Abstract Background: The Convention on Biological Diversity has reported invasive species as 2nd greatest cause of species extinction (COP10). However few efforts have been made to collate the evidence to support or contest the impact of invasive species on the decline and/or extinction of threatened species across large taxonomic or geographical scales. This Systematic Review was commissioned by the United States Department for Agriculture (USDA) Invasives Causing Extinction (ICE) programme to determine if the COP10 statement was based on scientific evidence. The evidence needs to be systematically reviewed and mapped to determine the importance and relevance of any such effects in order to develop national and international policies addressing the loss of threatened species, and to prioritise research and mitigation efforts. Methods/design: The searching of online publication databases, grey literature and other resources, such as recovery plans of endangered species, aims to gather existing evidence on whether invasive species are a significant contributor to the decline and/or extinction of threatened
    [Show full text]