DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Environmental Assessment UT- 080 – 06 – 280 October OIL SHALE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT WHITE RIVER MINE, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Vernal Field Office 170 South 500 East Vernal, Utah 84078 Phone: 435-781-4400 Fax: 435-781-4410 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Vernal Field Office 170 South 500 East Vernal, UT 84078 (435) 781-4400 Fax: (435) 781-4410 IN REPLY REFER TO: UT-080-06-280 September 18, 2006 Dear Reader: Enclosed for your review and comment is the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Oil Shale Research, Development And Demonstration Project at the location of the former White River Shale Oil Company Mine in Uintah County, Utah. The EA was prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) directing the preparation of the document. The EA describes the three phases of work that would occur to test the ATP retort process, and its ability to extract oil from mined oil shale. The project is located approximately 30 miles south of Vernal, Utah, within Township 10 South, Range 24 East of Uintah County, Utah. The Proposed Action calls for 3 different phases of work. The first phase would consist mainly of hauling stockpiles of oil shale to a retorting demonstration plant in Canada. The second phase would consist of moving a demonstration retort processing plant to the former White River Mine area, processing stockpiles of oil shale that are on the surface, and eventually re-opening the White River Mine, and the commencement of mining of oil shale. The third phase would involve an up-scaling of the retort demonstration plant, continuation of mining, and the construction of various supporting facilities and utility corridors. The public comment period begins on September 18, 2006, and ends on October 18, 2006. The BLM Vernal Field Office invites you to comment on this document, particularly with respect to the adequacy of the analysis of environmental impacts. This document is also available on-line at http://www.blm.gov/utah/vernal/nepa.html. If you wish to submit comments on this Draft EA, we request that you make them as specific as possible (citing suggested changes, sources, or methodologies), with references to page numbers and chapters of the document. Comments that contain only opinions or preferences will not receive a formal response, but will be considered and included as part of the BLM decision-making process. Comments will be accepted by email, letter, or fax. Receipt and consideration of comments by other means cannot be guaranteed by the BLM. Please refer to EA #UT- C O N T E N T S Page 1.0 PURPOSE & NEED 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Background 1 1.3 Purpose(s) of and Need for the Proposed Action 3 1.4 Project Overview 3 1.4.1 Prior Development – The White River Shale Project 5 1.4.2 Remaining On-Site Facilities 6 1.5 Conformance with BLM Land Use Plan 6 1.6 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or Other Plans 7 1.7 Identification of Issues 11 1.7.1 Air Quality 12 1.7.2 Wastes (Hazardous and Solid) 13 1.7.3 Water Resources 14 1.7.4 Soils 15 1.7.5 Geology/ Mineral Resources/ Energy Production 15 1.7.6 Flood Plains 15 1.7.7 Wetland/Riparian Zones 16 1.7.8 Threatened/Endangered Wildlife Species 16 1.7.9 Fish and Wildlife Including Special Status Species other than USFWS Candidate or Listed Species 17 1.7.10 Threatened/Endangered Plant Species 18 1.7.11 Vegetation Including Special Status Species other that USFWS Candidate or Listed Species 19 1.7.12 Invasive, Non-native Species 20 1.7.13 Recreation 20 1.7.14 Visual Resources 20 1.7.15 Cultural Resources 20 1.7.16 Paleontological Resources 21 1.7.17 Socio-economics 21 1.7.18 Special Designation Areas 21 1.8 Summary 23 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION 24 2.1 Introduction 24 2.2 Alternative A – Oil Shale Recovery using the ATP System and Western Gas Pipeline Right-of-Way (Proposed Action) 26 2.2.1 The ATP System 26 2.2.2 Phase 1 27 2.2.3 Phase 2 28 2.2.3.1 Mine Reopening/Operation Activities 30 2.2.3.2 Retort Activities 30 2.2.4 Phase 3 33 -i- 2.2.4.1 Construction Activities 33 2.2.4.2 Retort Activities 34 2.2.4.3 Proposed Rights-of-Way (Western Gas Pipeline Route) 36 2.2.5 Applicant-Committed Environmental Control and Management Measures 36 2.3 Alternative B – Shale Oil Recovery using ATP Processor with Alternate Eastern Natural Gas Pipeline Right-of-Way 42 2.4 Alternative C – No Action 43 2.5 Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Further Analysis 43 2.5.1 Oil Shale Recovery Using Other Retorts 43 2.5.2 In-Situ Method 44 2.5.3 Oil Shale Retorting using 4-ton/hour ATP Processor without Mine Reopening( Implementing Phases 1 and 2 Only) 45 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 46 3.1 Introduction 46 3.2 General Setting 46 3.2.1 Climate 46 3.2.2 Geology 47 3.2.3 Surface Water Resources 47 3.2.4 Ground Water Resources 48 3.2.5 Livestock Grazing 48 3.3 Resources of Concern Brought Forward for Analysis 48 3.3.1 Air Quality 49 3.3.2 Wastes (Hazardous and Solid) 49 3.3.3 Water Resources 49 3.3.4 Soils 54 3.3.5 Geology/Mineral Resources/Energy Production 56 3.3.6 Floodplains 58 3.3.7 Wetlands/Riparian Zones 59 3.3.8 Threatened/Endangered Wildlife Species 60 3.3.9 Fish and Wildlife Including Special Status Species other than USFWS Candidate or Listed Species 60 3.3.10 Threatened/Endangered Plant Species 68 3.3.11 Vegetation Including Special Status Species other than USFWS Candidate or Listed Species 70 3.3.12 Invasive, Non-native Species 74 3.3.13 Recreation 76 3.3.14 Visual Resources 79 3.3.15 Cultural Resources 80 3.3.16 Paleontological Resources 84 3.3.17 Socio-economics 86 3.3.18 Special Designation Areas 86 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 90 4.1 Introduction 90 4.2 Direct/Indirect Impacts 90 4.2.1 Air Quality 90 -ii- 4.2.2 Wastes (Hazardous and Solid) 105 4.2.3 Water Resources 119 4.2.4 Soils 125 4.2.5 Geology/Mineral Resources/Energy Production 128 4.2.6 Flood Plains 129 4.2.7 Wetlands/Riparian Zones 130 4.2.8 Threatened/Endangered Wildlife Species 133 4.2.9 Fish and Wildlife Including Special Status Species other than FWS Candidate or Listed Endangered or Threatened Species 135 4.2.10 Threatened/Endangered Plant Species 138 4.2.11 Vegetation Including Special Status species other than USFWS Candidate or Listed Species 139 4.2.12 Invasive, Non-native Species 143 4.2.13 Recreation 147 4.2.14 Visual Resources 149 4.2.15 Cultural Resources 153 4.2.16 Paleontology Resources 157 4.2.17 Socio-Economics 159 4.2.18 Special Designation Areas 160 4.3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis 163 4.3.1 Past and Present Actions 163 4.3.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Action Scenario (RFAS) 165 4.3.3 Cumulative Impacts 166 5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 173 5.1 Introduction 173 5.2 Agency Consultation 173 5.3 List of Preparers 173 5.4 Summary of Public Participation 176 6.0 REFERENCES 177 -iii- C O N T E N T S (continued) Page T A B L E S Table 3-1: Summary of Ground Water Budget for the Birds Nest Aquifer 53 Table 3-2: Soil Types and Properties in the Vicinity of the White River Mine Site and Proposed Corridors 55 Table 3-3: Federally Listed and Proposed (P), Endangered (E), Threatened (T), and Candidate (C) Species and Habitat in Uintah County, Utah Updated January 2006 61 Table 3-4: BLM Sensitive Wildlife Species 62 Table 3-5: Utah Department of Wildlife Resources Managed Species 64 Table 3-6: Federally Listed and Proposed (P), Endangered (E), Threatened (T), and Candidate (C) Plant Species and Habitat in Uintah County, Utah Updated January 2006 69 Table 3-7: BLM Sensitive Plant Species 73 Table 3-8: State and County Noxious Weeds and Invasive Weed Species Potentially Present in the Project Area 75 Table 3-9: VRM Classes Associated with the OSEC Project 81 Table 3-10: Previous Cultural Resource Investigation in the Vicinity of the OSEC Oil Shale Project 82 Table 3-11: Previously Recorded Sites in or near the Proposed OSEC Oil Shale Project 83 Table 3-12: Cultural Resources Located During June 2006 Class III Inventory Within or Near the Proposed Action Utility ROWs North of the White River 84 Table 3-13: Segments Eligible for National Wild and Scenic River Designation 87 Table 3-14: Location of Utility Rights-of-Way Relative to the Proposed White River ACEC 89 Table 4-1: Applicable Ambient Air Quality Standards 91 Table 4-2: PSD Class I and II Emissions Increment Standards 92 Table 4-3: Phase I Estimated Emissions 95 Table 4-4: Phase 2 Estimated Emissions 98 Table 4-5: Phase 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 99 Table 4-6: Phase 2 Modeling Results 99 Table 4-7: Phase 3 Estimated Emissions 103 Table 4-8: Phase 3 Greenhouse Emissions 104 Table 4-9: Phase 3 Modeling Results 105 Table 4-10: Associated Vegetative Disturbance for the OSEC Utility Rights-of-way Under the Proposed Action 141 Table 4-11: Associated Vegetative Disturbance for the OSEC Utility Rights-of-way Under Alternative B 144 Table 4-12: VRM Classes Associated with the Proposed Pipeline ROW 150 Table 4-13: VRM Classes Associated with the Alternative B Pipeline Route 153 -iv- C O N T E N T S (continued) Page Table 4-14: Cultural resources located during Class III Inventories within or near the Proposed Action utility ROWs north of the White River 154 Table 4-15: Sites previously recorded south of the White River within or near areas affected by the Proposed Action 155 Table 4-16: Cultural resources located during Class III Inventories within or near the Alternative B natural gas pipeline ROW north of the White
Load more

Recommended publications
  • US Fish and Wildlife Service
    BARNEBY REED-MUSTARD (S. barnebyi ) CLAY REED-MUSTARD SHRUBBY REED-MUSTARD (S,arguillacea) (S. suffrutescens) .-~ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UTAH REED—MUSTARDS: CLAY REED-MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE ARGILLACEA) BARNEBY REED—MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE BARNEBYI) SI-IRUBBY REED-MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE SUFFRUTESCENS) RECOVERY PLAN Prepared by Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Approved: Date: (~19~- Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect the species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will only be attained and funds expended contingent upon appropriations, priorities, and other budgetary constraints. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approvals of any individuals or agencies, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, involved in the plan formulation. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as an~roved Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature Citation should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Utah reed—mustards: clay reed—mustard (Schoenocrambe argillacea), Barneby reed-mustard (Schoenocrambe barnebyl), shrubby reed—mustard (Schoenacranibe suffrutescens) recovery plan. Denver, Colorado. 22 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Telephone: 301/492—6403 or 1—800—582—3421 The fee for the plan varies depending on the number of pages of the plan.
    [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]
  • Threatened, Endangered, Candidate & Proposed Plant Species of Utah
    TECHNICAL NOTE USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service Boise, Idaho and Salt Lake City, Utah TN PLANT MATERIALS NO. 52 MARCH 2011 THREATENED, ENDANGERED, CANDIDATE & PROPOSED PLANT SPECIES OF UTAH Derek Tilley, Agronomist, NRCS, Aberdeen, Idaho Loren St. John, PMC Team Leader, NRCS, Aberdeen, Idaho Dan Ogle, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Boise, Idaho Casey Burns, State Biologist, NRCS, Salt Lake City, Utah Last Chance Townsendia (Townsendia aprica). Photo by Megan Robinson. This technical note identifies the current threatened, endangered, candidate and proposed plant species listed by the U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI FWS) in Utah. Review your county list of threatened and endangered species and the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Conservation Data Center (CDC) GIS T&E database to see if any of these species have been identified in your area of work. Additional information on these listed species can be found on the USDI FWS web site under “endangered species”. Consideration of these species during the planning process and determination of potential impacts related to scheduled work will help in the conservation of these rare plants. Contact your Plant Material Specialist, Plant Materials Center, State Biologist and Area Biologist for additional guidance on identification of these plants and NRCS responsibilities related to the Endangered Species Act. 2 Table of Contents Map of Utah Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Plant Species 4 Threatened & Endangered Species Profiles Arctomecon humilis Dwarf Bear-poppy ARHU3 6 Asclepias welshii Welsh’s Milkweed ASWE3 8 Astragalus ampullarioides Shivwits Milkvetch ASAM14 10 Astragalus desereticus Deseret Milkvetch ASDE2 12 Astragalus holmgreniorum Holmgren Milkvetch ASHO5 14 Astragalus limnocharis var.
    [Show full text]
  • New Notice Identifies Vertebrate Listing Candidates Protection Recommended for Three Plants
    October 1985 Vol. X No. 10 Department of interior. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Technical Bulletin Endangered Species Program, Washington, D.C. 20240 New Notice Identifies Vertebrate Listing Candidates In the September 18, 1985, Federal Register, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a "Review of Vertebrate Wildlife," replacing and updating an ear- lier version that appeared in 1982. The main purpose of the new notice is to identify those native U.S. vertebrate taxa—fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals—that are considered candidates for possible addition to the Federal List of Endangered and Threa- tened Wildlife, and to request comments and information that may assist in deter- mining whether or not to actually pro- pose such addition. The identified animals are placed in one of three categories that reflect their biological status: m Category 1 comprises taxa for which g the FWS currently has substantial a information on hand to support the S biological appropriateness of prop- osing to list as Endangered or Threatened. The golden-cheei<ed warbler fDendroica chrysopariaj is one of the 515 vertebrate (continued on page 12) taxa identified as candidates for future listing. Protection Recommended for Three Plants The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) The plant is a low growing perennial on three sides and posted it as closed to proposed during September to list three with small, oval, greenish-white leaves motor vehicles, ORVs still enter through plants as Endangered. All are restricted that are densely arranged in tight the unfenced side. The Steamboat buck- in range, and are thought to be vulnera- rosettes.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory of Sensitive Species and Ecosystems in Utah, Endemic And
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
    [Show full text]
  • Schoenocrambe Suffrutescens (Shrubby Reed-Mustard)
    Schoenocrambe suffrutescens (Shrubby Reed-mustard) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo courtesy of Bekee Hotze, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Field Office – Ecological Services West Valley City, Utah 84119 November 2010 5-YEAR REVIEW Schoenocrambe suffrutescens (Shrubby reed-mustard) 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Purpose of 5-Year Reviews The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required by Section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (hereafter referred to as the “ESA”) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing as endangered or threatened is based on the species’ status considering the five threat factors described in Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. These same five factors are considered in any subsequent reclassification or delisting decisions. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed. If we recommend a change in listing status based on the results of the 5-year review, we must propose to do so through a separate rule-making process including public review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Biological Assessment for the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement
    Revised Biological Assessment for the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement July 14, 2015 FS_0081605 Revised Biological Assessment for Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Background ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Purpose and Need for GRSG LUP Amendment ........................................................................................... 6 Description of Planning Area ........................................................................................................................ 6 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................................... 10 SPECIES CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 10 SPECIES INFORMATION AND CRITICAL HABITAT ............................................................................. 42 A. Wildlife and Fish .................................................................................................................................... 42 Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis)—Threatened ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Spring Newsletter
    The Penstemaniac NEWSLETTER OF THE AMERICAN PENSTEMON SOCIETY VOLUME 11 NO 2 SPRING 2017 ESTABLISHED 1946 AMERICAN PENSTEMON SOCIETY joined by the UTAH NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY Annual Meeting, June 2-5, 2017 Uintah Conference Center, 313 E 200 S, Vernal, Utah, 435/ 789-8001 www.uintahconferencecenter.com An updated schedule will be available on the American Penste- mon Society (http://penstemons.org) and Utah Native Plant Society (www. unps.org) web sites ahead of the meeting. Schedule Friday, June 2 Uintah Confer- ence Center (address above) Noon–5 pm Registration at the reception desk by the doors in the south lobby. Registration materials will include an updated schedule, de- Uintah Conference Center tailed information about field trips, a key to the penstemons of the area, and information about the field trip leaders and banquet speakers + a baseball cap + Field Trip Sign-up + Waiver of Liability + packet of information from Uintah County Travel & Tourism with area attractions and list of Vernal restaurants 2–pm APS Board Meeting, Split Mt. rooms 1 & 2, main floor of the Conference Center 4–5 pm Poster presentation on the relationships of the presently described varieties of the Pen- stemon scariosus complex, including geographical maps of the distribution of morphological char- acters and molecular relationships across the region; Mikel Stevens, Robert Johnson, Andi Wolfe, Rosa Rodriguez Pena, and Jason Stettler; Mezzanine, second floor of the Conference Center 5–6 pm Get-acquainted Social, appetizers and soft drinks, Mezzanine, second
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Plant Species of Utah
    TECHNICAL NOTE USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service Boise, Idaho and Salt Lake City, Utah TN PLANT MATERIALS NO. 52 January 2013 Revision THREATENED, ENDANGERED & CANDIDATE PLANT SPECIES OF UTAH Derek Tilley, Agronomist, NRCS, Aberdeen, Idaho Loren St. John, PMC Team Leader, NRCS, Aberdeen, Idaho Dan Ogle, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Boise, Idaho (ret.) Casey Burns, State Biologist, NRCS, Salt Lake City, Utah Richard Fleenor, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Spokane, Washington Last Chance Townsendia (Townsendia aprica). Photo by Megan Robinson. This technical note identifies the current threatened, endangered, candidate and proposed plant species listed by the U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI FWS) in Utah. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 Map of Utah Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Plant Species 6 Threatened & Endangered Species Profiles 7 Arctomecon humilis Dwarf Bear-poppy ARHU3 8 Asclepias welshii Welsh’s Milkweed ASWE3 10 Astragalus ampullarioides Shivwits Milkvetch ASAM14 12 Astragalus desereticus Deseret Milkvetch ASDE2 14 Astragalus holmgreniorum Holmgren Milkvetch ASHO5 16 Astragalus limnocharis var. montii Heliotrope Milkvetch ASLIM 18 Carex specuicola Navajo Sedge CASP9 20 Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii Jones’ Waxy Dogbane CYHUJ 22 Glacocarpum suffrutescens Shrubby Reed-Mustard GLSU 24 Lepidium barnebyanum Barneby Ridge-cress LEBA 26 Lesquerella tumulosa or L. rubicundula Kodachrome Bladderpod LERU4 28 Pediocactus despainii San Rafael Cactus PEDE17 30 Pediocactus winkleri Winkler Cactus PEWI2
    [Show full text]
  • Schoenocrambe Suffrutescens (Shrubby Reed-Mustard)
    Schoenocrambe suffrutescens (Shrubby Reed-mustard) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo courtesy of Bekee Hotze, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Field Office – Ecological Services West Valley City, Utah 84119 November 2010 5-YEAR REVIEW Schoenocrambe suffrutescens (Shrubby reed-mustard) 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Purpose of 5-Year Reviews The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required by Section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (hereafter referred to as the “ESA”) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing as endangered or threatened is based on the species’ status considering the five threat factors described in Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. These same five factors are considered in any subsequent reclassification or delisting decisions. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed. If we recommend a change in listing status based on the results of the 5-year review, we must propose to do so through a separate rule-making process including public review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Flora: Brassicaceae (Cruciferae)
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 37 Number 3 Article 1 9-30-1977 Utah flora: Brassicaceae (Cruciferae) Stanley L. Welsh Brigham Young University James L. Reveal University of Maryland, College Park, and Smithsonian Institutuion, Washington, D.C. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Welsh, Stanley L. and Reveal, James L. (1977) "Utah flora: Brassicaceae (Cruciferae)," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 37 : No. 3 , Article 1. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol37/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. The Great Basin Naturalist Published at Provo, Utah, by Brigham Young University ISSN 0017-3614 Volume 37 September 30, 1977 No. 3 UTAH FLORA: BRASSICACEAE (CRUCIFERAE) Stanley L. Welsh' James L. Reveal- Abstract.— The mustard family, Brassicaceae (Cruciferae) is revised for the state of Utah. Treated are 155 spe- cies and 44 varieties, including 37 species of introduced weeds or escaped cultivated plants. A key to the genera and species is included, along with detailed descriptions, distribution data, and pertinent comments for many of the taxa. Proposed new varieties are: Lepidium montanum Nutt. var. stellae Welsh & Reveal; L. montanum var. neeseae Welsh & Reveal; Lesquerella hemiphysaria Maguire var. liicens Welsh & Reveal; Physaria aciitifolia Rydb. var. purpurea Welsh & Reveal; and, Tfielypodhtm sagittatum (Nutt.) Endl. in Walp. var. vennicularis Welsh & Reveal. The following new combinations are made: Arabis confinis S.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Biogeography of Brassicaceae
    HISTORICAL BIOGEOGRAPHY OF BRASSICACEAE UNRAVELLING THE GEOGRAPHIC ORIGIN OF A FAMILY i Sara van de Kerke Registration number: 881211 428110 Email: [email protected] MSc thesis Biodiversity and Evolution - BIS-80436 Supervisors: Setareh Mohammadin and Freek T. Bakker ii SUMMARY Biogeography is the study of the geographic distribution of taxa and their attributes in space and time. There are three main processes that together are considered to pattern the distribution of taxa: dispersal, vicariance and extinction. Over the years, three quite distinct schools have developed within historical biogeography, which all comprehend a number of methodological directions: pattern-based, event-based, and model-based methods. The Brassicaceae is one of the largest plant families and is considered to comprise around 3660 species distributed over 320 genera. The family was thought to have originated in the New World based on the distribution of either the ‘basal’ placed tribe Theylopodieae and later the Hesperideae. An Old World origin, based on the genus Aetheionema now considered to be sister to all other Brassicaceae, is now proposed. It is assumed that the origin can be found were at the moment the largest diversity in species is, which would be the Iranoturanian region. In this project, this assumption is investigated. The most recent phylogenetic tree covering the whole family from Couvreur et al. is based on ITS, chs, adh, matK, trnL-F, ndhF, rbcL and nad4(Couvreur et al., 2010). This phylogenetic tree is updated with all available data from GenBank and alignent with two setting in the alignment program MAFFT. RAxML Maximum Likelyhood, TNT parsimony and Neighbour Network analyses were run.
    [Show full text]