DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Environmental Assessment Improvements to the North and Main Floodways Levee Systems

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Environmental Assessment Improvements to the North and Main Floodways Levee Systems Final Environmental Assessment Improvements to the North and Main Floodways Levee Systems Lead Agency: United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission El Paso, Texas Cooperating Agency: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Austin, Texas Technical Support: Parsons November 2007 Austin, Texas COVER SHEET FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MAIN AND NORTH FLOODWAY LEVEE SYSTEMS Lead Agency: United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission Cooperating Agency: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Proposed Action: Raising approximately 76 miles of the Main and North Floodway Levee Systems to meet current requirements for flood control. Report Designation: Final Environmental Assessment Abstract: The United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) is considering raising portions of the 29-mile Main Floodway Levee System and portions of the 46-mile North Floodway Levee System to meet current flood control requirements. The Proposed Action would increase the flood containment capacity of the Main and North Floodways Levee System by raising elevation of a number of levee segments for improved flood protection. Fill material would be added to the existing levee to bring height to its original design specifications, or to meet a 2-foot freeboard design criterion. Typical height increases in improvement areas would be less than 1 foot and would not require expansion of the existing levee footprint. In some locations, up to 2 feet of fill material would be placed on top of the levee, extending levee footprint up to a maximum of 12 feet form the current toe of the levee. This expansion would take place along the approximately 20 feet service corridor currently utilized for levee maintenance, inside the maintained floodway, and entirely within the flood control project right-of-way. In some instances, adjustment in levee slope would be made to eliminate the need for levee footprint expansion, when required due to engineering considerations or for protection of biological or cultural resources. The need for excavation outside the levee structure is not anticipated. The Environmental Assessment assesses potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. Potential impacts on natural, cultural, and other resources were evaluated, and mitigation measures were incorporated, as applicable, into the Proposed Action. A Finding of No Significant Impact was issued for the Proposed Action based on a review of the facts and analyses contained in the Environmental Assessment. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MAIN AND NORTH FLOODWAY LEVEE SYSTEMS Lead Agency: UNITED STATES SECTION, INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION UNITED STATES AND MEXICO Cooperating Agency: TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT Technical Support: Parsons 8000 Centre Park Dr., Suite 200 Austin, Texas 78754 USIBWC Contract IBM04D0002, Task Order IBM06T0020 NOVEMBER 2007 Main and North Floodway Levee Systems Environmental Assessment Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION......................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose of and Need for Action........................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 USIBWC Authority ............................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Scope of the Environmental Review................................................................................. 1-2 1.4 Environmental Coordination and Compliance Analysis.................................................... 1-3 1.5 Organization of the Environmental Assessment............................................................... 1-5 SECTION 2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ...................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Levee System Description ................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Proposed Action................................................................................................................ 2-2 2.3 Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Detailed study........................................... 2-8 2.4 Other Actions With Potential Cumulative Impacts ............................................................ 2-8 2.5 Summary Comparison of Environmental Consequences of the Alternatives................... 2-9 2.5.1 No Action Alternative............................................................................................... 2-9 2.5.2 Proposed Action...................................................................................................... 2-9 SECTION 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...................................................................................3-1 3.1 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 Vegetation ............................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.2 Wildlife..................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................................... 3-6 3.1.4 Wetlands and Aquatic Habitat................................................................................. 3-6 3.2 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 3-8 3.2.1 Previous Cultural Resources Studies ..................................................................... 3-9 3.2.2 Historic and Prehistoric Archaeological Resources .............................................. 3-11 3.2.3 Historic-age Resources......................................................................................... 3-13 3.2.4 Cemeteries............................................................................................................ 3-13 3.3 Water Resources ............................................................................................................ 3-16 3.3.1 Regional Flood Control ......................................................................................... 3-16 3.3.2 Water Flow ............................................................................................................ 3-17 3.4 Land Use......................................................................................................................... 3-19 3.4.1 Natural Resources Management Areas................................................................ 3-19 3.4.2 Agricultural Land ................................................................................................... 3-19 3.4.3 Urban Areas .......................................................................................................... 3-19 3.5 Community Resources.................................................................................................... 3-20 3.5.1 Socioeconomics .................................................................................................... 3-20 3.5.2 Environmental Justice ........................................................................................... 3-23 3.5.3 Transportation ....................................................................................................... 3-23 3.6 Environmental Health...................................................................................................... 3-24 3.6.1 Air Quality.............................................................................................................. 3-24 i USIBWC Main and North Floodway Levee Systems Environmental Assessment Contents 3.6.2 Noise ..................................................................................................................... 3-25 3.6.3 Hazardous and Toxic Waste................................................................................. 3-26 SECTION 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ....................................................................4-1 4.1 Biological Resources ........................................................................................................4-1 4.1.1 Vegetation ............................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Wildlife..................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................................... 4-4 4.1.4 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Aquatic Habitat........................................................... 4-5 4.1.5 Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................. 4-5 4.2 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 4-6 4.2.1 Historic and Prehistoric Archaeological Resources ................................................ 4-6 4.2.2 Historic-age Resources........................................................................................... 4-6 4.3 Water Resources .............................................................................................................. 4-8 4.3.1 Flood Control..........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • C:\February Sabal 2006.Vp
    Volume23,number2,February2006 The Sabal www.nativeplantproject.org Greetings, Fellow Native Plant More and more private individuals are Enthusiast! finding out about the great importance of planting native species of plants in yards, byMartin Hagne businesses, parks, and schools. The NPP can be proud to have been a big part of this It was with great humility that I accepted the new and much needed trend. Many local position of President of the Native Plant and national organizations strive for the Project. Following in the great footsteps of protection, understanding, and use of those such plant experts as Joe Ideker and, more very special plants that belong to our area. recently, Gene Lester will be no easy task! The NPP has always been in the forefront of The organization is left in great shape from such efforts, and every member, volunteer, the leadership of Gene, and a very and board member who ever belonged or dedicated board. The NPP has always served should be commended for their been a group that has drawn wonderful efforts!! volunteers having much expertise in the Let’s continue to work hard for these plants native plant communities of the Lower Rio that we all love so much! Join me in another Grande Valley. The organization’s purpose great year of the NPP!! There is much to is as true and needed today as ever before! celebrate with the release of new NPP plant Threats to the area’s native habitat and their booklets, native plant sales, the Sabal plants are a real danger, and we are losing newsletter, and informative presentations at acreafteracreofplants.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Assessment for the Rio Grande City Station Road
    DRAFT FINDING OF NO SIGNIFIGANT IMPACT (FONSI) RIO GRANDE CITY STATION ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, RIO GRANDE CITY, TEXAS, RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTOR, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. BORDER PATROL, RIO GRANDE VALLEY SECTOR, TEXAS U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHINGTON, D.C. INTRODUCTION: United States (U.S.) Customs and Border Protection (CBP) plans to upgrade and lengthen four existing roads in the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Rio Grande City (RGC) Station’s Area of Responsibility (AOR). The Border Patrol Air and Marine Program Management Office (BPAM-PMO) within CBP has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). This EA addresses the proposed upgrade and construction of the four aforementioned roads and the BPAM-PMO is preparing this EA on behalf of the USBP Headquarters. CBP is the law enforcement component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that is responsible for securing the border and facilitating lawful international trade and travel. USBP is the uniformed law enforcement subcomponent of CBP responsible for patrolling and securing the border between the land ports of entry. PROJECT LOCATION: The roads are located within the RGC Station’s AOR, Rio Grande Valley (RGV) Sector, in Starr County, Texas. The RGC Station’s AOR encompasses approximately 1,228 square miles, including approximately 68 miles along the U.S.-Mexico border and the Rio Grande from the Starr/Zapata County line to the Starr/Hidalgo County line. From north to south, the four road segments are named Mouth of River to Chapeno Hard Top, Chapeno USIBWC Gate to Salineno, Salineno to Enron, and 19-20 Area to Fronton Fishing, and all of these segments are located south of Falcon International Reservoir (Falcon Lake), generally parallel to the Rio Grande.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting the Historic Distribution and Habitats of the Whooping Crane Jane E
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center US Geological Survey 2019 Revisiting the Historic Distribution and Habitats of the Whooping Crane Jane E. Austin Matthew A. Hayes Jeb A. Barzen Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsnpwrc Part of the Animal Sciences Commons, Behavior and Ethology Commons, Biodiversity Commons, Environmental Policy Commons, Recreation, Parks and Tourism Administration Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. CHAPTER 3 Revisiting the Historic Distribution and Habitats of the Whooping Crane Jane E. Austin*, Matthew A. Hayes**, Jeb A. Barzen** *U.S. Geological Survey, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, ND, United States **International Crane Foundation, Baraboo, WI, United States INTRODUCTION habitat (Prince, 1997). Many endangered species persist only on the periphery of their historic Understanding the historic range and habitats range because of habitat loss or modification in of an endangered species can assist in conserva- their core range (Channell and Lomolino, 2000), tion and reintroduction efforts for that species. which can bias our understanding of the spe- Individuals reintroduced into a species’ historic cies’ habitat preferences. Further, habitat models core range have a higher survival rate compared based on locations where species persist neces- to individuals introduced near the periphery or sarily emphasize local conditions rather than outside the historic range (Falk and Olwell, 1992; historical conditions ( Kuemmerle et al., 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • A Spatial Analysis Approach to the Global Delineation of Dryland Areas of Relevance to the CBD Programme of Work on Dry and Subhumid Lands
    A spatial analysis approach to the global delineation of dryland areas of relevance to the CBD Programme of Work on Dry and Subhumid Lands Prepared by Levke Sörensen at the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre Cambridge, UK January 2007 This report was prepared at the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC). The lead author is Levke Sörensen, scholar of the Carlo Schmid Programme of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD). Acknowledgements This report benefited from major support from Peter Herkenrath, Lera Miles and Corinna Ravilious. UNEP-WCMC is also grateful for the contributions of and discussions with Jaime Webbe, Programme Officer, Dry and Subhumid Lands, at the CBD Secretariat. Disclaimer The contents of the map presented here do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UNEP-WCMC or contributory organizations. The designations employed and the presentations do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP-WCMC or contributory organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area or its authority, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. 3 Table of contents Acknowledgements............................................................................................3 Disclaimer ...........................................................................................................3 List of tables, annexes and maps .....................................................................5 Abbreviations
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying Priority Ecoregions for Amphibian Conservation in the U.S. and Canada
    Acknowledgements This assessment was conducted as part of a priority setting effort for Operation Frog Pond, a project of Tree Walkers International. Operation Frog Pond is designed to encourage private individuals and community groups to become involved in amphibian conservation around their homes and communities. Funding for this assessment was provided by The Lawrence Foundation, Northwest Frog Fest, and members of Tree Walkers International. This assessment would not be possible without data provided by The Global Amphibian Assessment, NatureServe, and the International Conservation Union. We are indebted to their foresight in compiling basic scientific information about species’ distributions, ecology, and conservation status; and making these data available to the public, so that we can provide informed stewardship for our natural resources. I would also like to extend a special thank you to Aaron Bloch for compiling conservation status data for amphibians in the United States and to Joe Milmoe and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program for supporting Operation Frog Pond. Photo Credits Photographs are credited to each photographer on the pages where they appear. All rights are reserved by individual photographers. All photos on the front and back cover are copyright Tim Paine. Suggested Citation Brock, B.L. 2007. Identifying priority ecoregions for amphibian conservation in the U.S. and Canada. Tree Walkers International Special Report. Tree Walkers International, USA. Text © 2007 by Brent L. Brock and Tree Walkers International Tree Walkers International, 3025 Woodchuck Road, Bozeman, MT 59715-1702 Layout and design: Elizabeth K. Brock Photographs: as noted, all rights reserved by individual photographers.
    [Show full text]
  • AN EXTENSIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY on the JAGUAR a Working Draft, 23 April, 1999 By: E. Lee Fitzhugh , Gilberto Ríos Ú ., Paule M. Gros
    AN EXTENSIVE BIBLIOGRAPHY ON THE JAGUAR1 A working draft, 23 April, 1999 By: E. Lee Fitzhugh2, Gilberto Ríos Ú3., Paule M. Gros1, William E. Van Pelt4, and Raul Valdéz5. (Appendix added by Robert J. Wiese6 through time.) Introduction This bibliography is extensive, but not definitive. In addition to scientific literature, we include unpublished reports, popular articles, and even some field guides where they seem to contribute new information or represent old information no longer well recognized. Our primary interest is in jaguar (Panthera onca) biology, life history, and management. We include literature from such other disciplines as veterinary medicine, behavioral science, zoo management, archaeology, and anthropology, although in the areas more peripheral to biology we may have missed much. We tried to screen out fiction, although in one case, we purposely included a fictionalized biography that includes extensive treatment of jaguar hunting. We gathered the information by directed searches (by hand and by computer) of library catalogs and databases, by examining the citations of selected publications, by browsing among library shelves, by incorporating another existing bibliography from the Arizona Game and Fish Department (by Raul Valdez and William E. Van Pelt), and by somewhat random excursions into the literature of related disciplines. Even at this stage of preparation, we find new citations almost weekly -- sometimes whole lists of them. Even so, our efforts now provide diminishing returns, and we believe it is time to circulate this draft to a select audience of jaguar (or yaguar) experts in hopes that you will send us some of the citations that so far have eluded us.
    [Show full text]
  • New Molecular Tools for Dendroctonus Frontalis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Reveal an East–West Genetic Subdivision of Early Pleistocene Origin
    Copyedited by: OUP Insect Systematics and Diversity, (2019) 3(2): 2; 1–14 doi: 10.1093/isd/ixz002 Molecular Phylogenetics, Phylogenomics, and Phylogeography Research New Molecular Tools for Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae) Reveal an East–West Genetic Subdivision of Early Pleistocene Origin Nathan P. Havill,1,6, Anthony I. Cognato,2 Ek del-Val,3 Robert J. Rabaglia,4 and Ryan C. Garrick5, 1USDA Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 51 Mill Pond Road, Hamden, CT 06514, 2Department of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, 3Instituto de Investigaciones en Ecosistemas y Sustentabilidad- Escuela Nacional de Estudios Superiores Unidad Morelia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico, 4USDA Forest Service, State & Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection, Washington, DC 20250, 5Department of Biology, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS 38677, and 6Corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] Subject Editor: Jeffrey Lozier Received 1 October, 2018; Editorial decision 18 February, 2019 Abstract Southern pine beetle, Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmermann, is a major native pest of pine trees in the south- eastern United States, Mexico, and Central America. The species’ range has recently expanded north for the first time in recorded history. Accordingly, information about the timing of population divergence and past geo- graphic range occupancy may provide an important yardstick for understanding rapid range expansions. Using 16 new and eight existing microsatellite loci, together with mitochondrial (COI) and nuclear (EF-1α and 28S) DNA sequence data, we characterized broad-scale patterns of genetic variation in D. frontalis, and estimated divergence times for the entire D. frontalis species complex. Molecular dating suggested a middle Miocene (ca.
    [Show full text]
  • Border 2012: U.S. Mexico Environmental Program” and “U.S.-Mexico Environmental Program: Border 2012 – a Mid-Course Refinement (2008-2012)”
    State of the Border Region 2010 Acknowledgements This report benefits from the contributions, review, and suggestions of many staff at EPA, SEMARNAT, border region tribes and indigenous communities, and other federal, state, and local agencies in the U.S. and Mexico. Particular thanks go to representatives of Border 2012 coordinating bodies that provided leadership in the development and refinement of indicators in their areas of expertise. We hope that this report will be informative to a broad range of audiences in the border region. And, we hope that it will be useful in charting the future course of binational efforts to improve the environmental quality of the border region, and in so doing, the health and quality of life of those who call the border region home. César E. Rodríguez Ortega Steve Young Border Indicators Task Force Co-Chair, SEMARNAT Border Indicators Task Force Co-Chair, U.S. EPA May 2011 i State of the Border Region 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Report Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 1 2. The U.S.-Mexico Border Region ........................................................................................................................ 5 What are the population trends in the border region? ................................................................................................. 7 • Border Region Population and Forecast Population Growth: 2005-2030 ..........................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Section 8 References
    Environmental Assessment Sediment Removal Downstream of Retamal Diversion Dam References SECTION 8 REFERENCES Airnav.com, http://www.airnav.com/airport/TS05, [accessed July 2003]. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regiona/reis/action.cfm [accessed July 2003]. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce, BEARFACTS, 2001, http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/bearfacts/action.cfm [accessed July 2003] CERL 1978. Construction Engineering Research Laboratory. Construction Site Noise Control Cost- Benefit Estimating Procedures, Interim Report N-36, January. EDR 2003. Environmental Data Resource, Inc. Environmental Risk Management Data, EDR Area Study Report, April 2003. Fermata 2003 http://www.fermatainc.com/home.html FISRWG 1998. Stream corridor restoration: principles, processes, and practices. The Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group. October 1998. FWC 2001. The Friends of the Wildlife Corridor – web page. http://www.corridorfriends.org Godfrey et al. 1973. Godfrey, C. L., G. S. McKee, and H. Oaks. General Soil Map of Texas. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Texas A&M University in cooperation with Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1973. Grodowitz et al. 2001. Grodowitz, M.J., JE. Freedman, H. Jones, L. Jeffers, C.F. Lopez, F. Nibling, 2001. Status of Waterhyacinth/Hydrilla Infestations and Associated Biological Control Agents in Lower Rio Grande Valley Cooperating Irrigation Districts. United States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Hidalgo County. The Handbook of Texas Online. (http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles [accessed July 2003]. ICE 2003. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) (formerly Immigration and Naturalization Service), U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The SARA Report, Volume 2
    The Report IN THIS ISSUE: THE (Click on blue links) NIVERSITY OF EXAS U T RIO GRANDE VALLEY RESEARCH & EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE 1. USDA grant proposes institute for professional development in agroecology EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT 2. Soil Ecology Lab has a new lab space and Instagram page FOR RESEARCH, 3. CoS Seed Grant to study the composition of soil microorganisms in RGV soils GRADUATE STUDIES, AND 4. Teaching abroad: Dr. Pereira engages Brazilian students with soil microbiology NEW PROGRAM 5. USDA grant proposes student-led research in on-farm nanomaterials DEVELOPMENT 6. UTRGV offers new BS major in Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems 7. Edinburg Research Garden prepares for USDA-funded high-tunnel hoop house 8. UTRGV engineering student presents energy-audit findings to corporate leadership Dr. Parwinder Grewal 9. SARA supports proposal for post-doctoral fellowship plan Executive Vice President 10. Students join MS program in Sustainable Agriculture through fellowships for Research, 11. Graduate student in AESS to focus on use of unmanned aerial systems in agriculture Graduate Studies, and New Program 12. Participatory research is developing better wines from South Texas grapes Development 13. SARA seeks graduate student in AESS for research in enology Dr. Alex Racelis Co-Director for SARA OUTREACH & EXTENSION 14. SARA moves organizationally within UTRGV and to a new location 15. Planning begins for the 2018 Texas Hispanic Farmer and Rancher Conference George Bennack 16. SARA partners with Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance to hold workshop Co-Director for SARA 17. TRCC client vies for H-E-B’s prestigious award; Quest for Texas Best 18.
    [Show full text]
  • Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act Approved Grants 2018
    NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION ACT APPROVED GRANTS 2018 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Project Name U.S.-MEXICO MOPL CONNECTIVITY & CONSERVATION I Location CO, MT, WY, COAH-COAHUILA, NL-NUEVO LEON, SLP-SAN LUIS POTOSI, WY, ZAC-ZACATECAS Congressional District CO-5, MT-AL, WY-AL Grantee Organization BIRD CONSERVANCY OF THE ROCKIES Project Officer Angela Dwyer Grantee Email [email protected] Project Country MX,US Partner Name CON-BIRD CONSERVANCY OF THE ROCKIES, STA-COLORADO PARKS & WILDLIFE, SCH- COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY, FED-SMITHSONIAN MIGRATORY BIRD CENTER, SCH-UNIVERSIDAD AUTONOMA DE NUEVO LEON (UANL), SCH-UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO Grant Award Amount $182,382.00 Proposed Match Amount $617,883.00 Joint Venture INTERMOUNTAIN WEST, NORTHERN GREAT PLAINS, OAKS AND PRAIRIES, PLAYA LAKES, PRAIRIE POTHOLE, RIO GRANDE Bird Conservation Region BCR 16-Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau, BCR 17-Badlands and Prairies, BCR 18-Shortgrass Prairie, BCR 35-Chihuahuan Desert, BCR 36-Tamaulipan Brushlands Ecoregion NA0808-Montana Valley & Foothill Grasslands, NA1303-Chihuahuan Desert, NA1312- Tamaulipan Mezquital, NA1313-Wyoming Basin Shrub Steppe Project Description The proposal builds on the broad scientific foundation and capacity established by Bird Conservancy of the Rockies and partners to advance knowledge and delivery of information regarding the Mountain Plover (MOPL) for conservation plans. This project will include
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation of Biological Diversity
    Indicator 6. Number of Forest-Dependent Species Number of Species 0 - 131 l No Data 132 - 386 0 - < 0.9 387 - 469 0.9 - < 1.0 470 - 539 1 - < 1.1 540 - 659 1.1 - < 1.4 >= 1.4 Figure 6-1. The number of tree and terrestrial animal species Figure 6-2. The estimated change in the number of forest- associated with forest habitats. (Data provided by NatureServe associated bird species from 1975 to 1999. Change is measured and World Wildlife Fund.) as l (1999 richness/1975 richness). Values of l >1.0 indicate increasing richness (green shades); values of l <1.0 indicate declining richness (red shades). (Data provided by the U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division.) What Is the Indicator and Why Is It Important? trends in forest bird richness have been mixed (figure 6-2). Ecoregions where forest bird richness has This indicator monitors the number of native species increased the greatest are found in the West and that are associated with forest habitats. Because one include the Great Basin, northern Rocky Mountains, of the more general signs of ecosystem stress is a northern mixed grasslands, and southwestern deserts. reduction in the variety of organisms inhabiting a Declining forest bird richness has primarily occurred given locale, species counts are often used in assessing in the East, with notable areas of decline in the ecosystem wellbeing. The count of forest-associated Mississippi lowland forests, southeastern coastal species can change under two conditions: native plain, northern New England, southern and eastern species can become extinct or new species can colonize Great Lakes forests, and central tallgrass prairie.
    [Show full text]