DOCSLIB.ORG

For Peer Review 16 17 9 Environmental Science and Policy Department, George Mason University, 4400 University 18 Dr

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
For Peer Review 16 17 9 Environmental Science and Policy Department, George Mason University, 4400 University 18 Dr Page 2 of 23 1 TITLE: 2 Tracking Species Recovery Status to Improve Endangered Species Act Decisions 3 4 AUTHORS NAME, AFFILIATION, AND EMAIL: 5 Ya-Wei Li, [email protected] 1 6 Brenda Molano-Flores, [email protected] 2 7 Olivia Davis, [email protected] 3 8 Maximilian L. Allen, [email protected] 2 9 Mark A. Davis, [email protected] 2 10 Jean M. Mengelkoch, [email protected] 2 11 Joseph J. Parkos III, [email protected] 4 12 Anthony Paul Porreca, [email protected] 4 13 Auriel M.V. Fournier, [email protected] 5 14 Alison P. Stodola, [email protected] 2 15 Jeremy Tiemann, [email protected] Peer 2 Review 16 Jason Bried, [email protected] 2 17 Paul B. Marcum, [email protected] 2 18 Connie J. Carroll-Cunningham, [email protected] 2 19 Eric D. Janssen, [email protected] 2 20 Eric F. Ulaszek, [email protected] 2 21 Susan McIntyre, [email protected] 2 22 Suneeti Jog, [email protected] 2 23 Edward P. F. Price, [email protected] 2 24 Julie Nieset, [email protected] 2 25 Tara Beveroth, [email protected] 2 26 Alexander Di Giovanni, [email protected] 6 27 Ryan J. Askren, [email protected] 6 28 Luke J. Malanchuk, [email protected] 6 29 Jared F. Duquette, [email protected] 7 30 Michael Joseph Dreslik, [email protected] 2 31 Thomas C. McElrath, [email protected] 2 32 John B. Taft, [email protected] 2 33 Kirk Stodola, [email protected] 2 34 Jacob Malcom, [email protected] 8,9 35 Andrew Carter, [email protected] 8,9 36 Megan Evansen, [email protected] 8 37 Leah Gerber, [email protected] 3 38 39 40 1 Environmental Policy Innovation Center, 700 K Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20001 41 42 2 Illinois Natural History Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois Urbana- 43 Champaign, 1816 South Oak St., Champaign IL 61820 44 45 3 Arizona State University, Center for Biology and Society, PO Box 873301, Tempe, AZ 85287 46 1 Page 3 of 23 1 4 Kaskaskia Biological Station, Illinois Natural History Survey, Prairie Research Institute, 2 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1235 CR 1000 N Sullivan, IL 61951 3 4 5 Forbes Biological Station–Bellrose Waterfowl Research Center, Illinois Natural History 5 Survey, Prairie Research Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Havana, IL 6 62644 7 8 6 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Natural Resources and 9 Environmental Sciences and Illinois Natural History Survey, Urbana, IL 61801 10 11 7 Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division, P.O. Box 30444, Lansing, MI 12 48909 13 14 8 Center for Conservation Innovation, Defenders of Wildlife, 1130 17th Street, NW, Washington, 15 D.C. 20036 For Peer Review 16 17 9 Environmental Science and Policy Department, George Mason University, 4400 University 18 Dr. Fairfax, VA 22030 19 20 SHORT RUNNING TITLE: 21 Tracking Endangered Species Status 22 23 KEYWORDS: 24 Endangered Species Act, monitoring, extinction, recovery, species classification 25 26 TYPE OF ARTICLE: 27 Policy Perspectives 28 29 NUMBER OF WORDS: 30 Abstract – 186 31 Manuscript – 2,981 32 33 NUMBER OF REFERENCES: 34 30 35 36 NUMBER OF FIGURES AND TABLES: 37 3 38 39 CONTACT INFORMATION FOR CORRESPONDENCES: 40 Ya-Wei Li 41 Environmental Policy Innovation Center, 700 K Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20001 42 [email protected] 2 Page 4 of 23 1 ABSTRACT 2 3 The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) protects over 2,000 species, but no concise, 4 standardized metrics exist for assessing changes in species recovery status. Tracking these 5 changes is crucial to understanding species status, adjusting conservation strategies, and 6 assessing the performance of the ESA. We helped develop and test novel metrics that track 7 changes in recovery status using six components. ESA 5-year status reviews provided all of the 8 information used to apply the recovery metrics. When we analyzed the reviews, we observed 9 several key challenges to species recovery. First, the reviews lack a standardized format and 10 clear documentation. Second, despite having been listed for decades, many species still lack 11 basic information about their biology and threats. Third, many species have continued to decline 12 after listing. Fourth, many species currently have no path to recovery. Applying the recovery 13 metrics allowed us to gain these and other insights about ESA implementation. We urge the U.S. 14 Fish and Wildlife Service to adopt the metrics as part of future status reviews in order to inform 15 public discourse on improvingFor conservation Peer policy Review and to systematically track the recovery 16 progress of all ESA species. 17 3 Page 5 of 23 1 Introduction 2 To effectively conserve imperiled species, accurate information of a species’ conservation status 3 must be readily available to inform management decisions (IUCN Standards and Petitions 4 Committee, 2019; Bayraktarov et al., 2021). Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), no 5 concise, standardized metrics exist for assessing changes in species recovery status (Malcom et 6 al. 2016). Instead, the changes are often evident only when a species’ ESA legal classification 7 changes (i.e., uplisted, downlisted, or delisted). For most ESA-listed species, however, these 8 reclassifications are very rare or nonexistent, making it impossible for them to capture subtle but 9 important changes in recovery progress (USFWS, 2018). For example, a species may require 20 10 years for recovery and delisting from the ESA. During this time, the species may be progressing 11 toward recovery but not enough to trigger a reclassification. Tracking this progress is crucial to 12 understanding species status, adjusting conservation strategies based on this status, and assessing 13 the performance of the ESA. 14 15 The ESA requires the U.S.For Fish and Peer Wildlife Service Review (USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries 16 Service (NMFS; hereafter “the Services”) to review the status of every listed species with a 17 recovery plan every 5 years. In theory, these reviews should be able to identify changes in 18 recovery status that fall short of reclassification. In practice, the contents of the reviews are 19 rarely standardized, complicating attempts to objectively track status changes or to compare the 20 status of multiple species. For example, no standardized guidelines exist for assessing population 21 reductions or changes in species extinction risk, as seen in other conservation assessments such 22 as the IUCN Red List (IUCN Standards and Petitions Committee, 2019). Further, even if all 5- 23 year reviews were to adopt standardized content, it is impractical to read the reviews for the over 24 1,660 U.S. listed species every 5 years to identify recovery trends (e.g., improving, stable, or 25 declining). 26 27 One solution is for the Services, as part of every 5-year review, to specify species status changes 28 in a concise, standardized manner. This information would allow the agencies to track changes 29 more reliably and to efficiently compare changes across hundreds of species, similar to how a 30 stock index allows for rapid comparison across hundreds of companies. When this species status 31 information is combined with data on species funding, habitat and threat assessments, local and 32 regional administrative variation, and conservation interventions, a fuller picture emerges with 33 greater resolution of the factors affecting species improvement or decline. 34 35 To examine the feasibility this approach, we worked with the USFWS to develop and test novel 36 metrics to track changes in species recovery status. These metrics are designed to concisely 37 reflect the most important information in a 5-year review about how a species’ status has 38 changed since the prior review. Over 75 biologists from five organizations representing 39 government, academia, and nonprofit groups tested the metrics on 50 ESA-listed species: 4 fish, 40 6 herpetofauna, 6 mammals, 8 birds, 4 insects, 1 arachnid, 5 crustacean, and 16 vascular plants 41 (Figure 1). Species were not selected randomly, but rather for taxonomic and geographic 42 diversity, and for recentness of a 5-year review to ensure that our testing covered a variety of 43 species and used updated information. This effort represents the largest number of scientists to 44 have evaluated the recovery status of a group of ESA-listed species using the same metrics. The 45 USFWS is currently considering whether and how to adopt the metrics. 46 4 Page 6 of 23 1 In this paper, we summarize the results of our assessment of the metrics and describe major 2 challenges to recovery that we identified during testing and offer recommendations to address 3 them. These challenges and recommendations, based on the 50 test species and our combined 4 experience, apply broadly to a large number of other ESA species. We urge federal agencies to 5 consider these recommendations as part of their efforts to conserve species and restore the role of 6 science (Executive Order No. 13,990, 2021). 7 8 The Recovery Metrics 9 At the outset of our project, the USFWS identified three criteria for evaluating the success of the 10 metrics: 1) metrics capture the critical components of tracking species recovery progress; 2) 11 metrics generate consistent results irrespective of the person applying them; and 3) USFWS 12 biologists can apply the metrics easily and without a significant time commitment. Thus, the 13 metrics must strike a balance between comprehensiveness, reliability, and concision. Based on 14 these criteria, we developed six components to assess changes in species recovery status: 15 1. Species’ current levelsFor of resiliency, Peer redundancy, Review and representation (“3Rs”) (Shaffer & 16 Stein, 2000; Figure 2).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Utah Field Office Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories and Monit
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Utah Field Office Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories and Monitoring of Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Plants August 31, 2011 Jones cycladenia Daniela Roth, USFWS Barneby ridge-cress Holmgren milk-vetch Jessi Brunson, USFWS Daniela Roth, USFWS Uinta Basin hookless cactus Bekee Hotze, USFWS Last chance townsendia Daniela Roth, USFWS Dwarf bear-poppy Daniela Roth, USFWS INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE These guidelines were developed by the USFWS Utah Field Office to clarify our office’s minimum standards for botanical surveys for sensitive (federally listed, proposed and candidate) plant species (collectively referred to throughout this document as “target species”). Although developed with considerable input from various partners (agency and non-governmental personnel), these guidelines are solely intended to represent the recommendations of the USFWS Utah Field Office and should not be assumed to satisfy the expectations of any other entity. These guidelines are intended to strengthen the quality of information used by the USFWS in assessing the status, trends, and vulnerability of target species to a wide array of factors and known threats. We also intend that these guidelines will be helpful to those who conduct and fund surveys by providing up-front guidance regarding our expectations for survey protocols and data reporting. These are intended as general guidelines establishing minimum criteria; the USFWS Utah Field Office reserves the right to establish additional standards on a case-by-case basis. Note: The Vernal Field Office of the BLM requires specific qualifications for conducing botanical field work in their jurisdiction; nothing in this document should be interpreted as replacing requirements in place by that (or any other) agency.
    [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]
  • Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Echinomastus Erectocentrus Var
    Vol. 78 Tuesday, No. 190 October 1, 2013 Part V Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis (Acun˜a Cactus) and Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae (Fickeisen Plains Cactus) Throughout Their Ranges; Final Rule VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:36 Sep 30, 2013 Jkt 232001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\01OCR4.SGM 01OCR4 emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with RULES4 60608 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 190 / Tuesday, October 1, 2013 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (TDD) may call the Federal Information For the Fickeisen plains cactus, the Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. threats to the species and its habitat Fish and Wildlife Service SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: result from habitat destruction, modification, and degradation from 50 CFR Part 17 Executive Summary livestock grazing (Factor A) in This document consists of a final rule combination with predation by small [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2012–0061; mammals (Factor C) and natural 4500030113] to list as endangered Echinomastus erectocentrus var. acunensis (acun˜ a environmental variability and the effects RIN 1018–AY51 cactus) and Pediocactus peeblesianus of climate such as drought. When var. fickeiseniae (Fickeisen plains combined with the above mentioned Endangered and Threatened Wildlife cactus) under the Act. For the remainder threats, small population size (Factor E) and Plants; Endangered Species of this document, these species will be likely exacerbates the effects of these Status for Echinomastus erectocentrus referred to by their common names. threats on the Fickeisen plains cactus.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants
    35906 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 118 / Monday, June 20, 2011 / Notices Screen outs Stayers Movers ALL MODES Total Number Responses ..................................................................................................... 8572 ........................ ........................ Total Burden Hours .............................................................................................................. 602 ........................ ........................ Status of the proposed information FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act requires us to collection: Continuing under current request information, see ‘‘VIII. review each listed species’ status at least authorization. Contacts.’’ Individuals who are hearing once every 5 years. Then, under section Authority: Section 8(C)(1) of the United impaired or speech impaired may call 4(c)(2)(B), we determine whether to States Housing Act of 1937. the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877– remove any species from the List 8337 for TTY (telephone typewriter or (delist), to reclassify it from endangered Dated: June 9, 2011. teletypewriter) assistance. to threatened, or to reclassify it from Raphael W. Bostic, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are threatened to endangered. Any change Assistant Secretary for Policy Development initiating 5-year status reviews under in Federal classification requires a & Research. the Act of 2 animal and 10 plant separate rulemaking process. [FR Doc. 2011–15275 Filed 6–17–11; 8:45 am] species: Autumn buttercup (Ranunculus In classifying,
    [Show full text]
  • TISSUE CULTURE, HISTOLOGICAL and PIGMENT ANALYSIS of Hylocereus Polyrhizus (Weber) Britton and Rose
    TISSUE CULTURE, HISTOLOGICAL AND PIGMENT ANALYSIS OF Hylocereus polyrhizus (Weber) Britton AND Rose UMMI NUR AIN ABDUL RAZAK DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE INSTITUTE OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES FACULTY OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR 2017 UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA ORIGINAL LITERARY WORK DECLARATION Name of Candidate: Ummi Nur Ain Abdul Razak (I.C No: 880607235120) Matric No: SGR 120073 Name of Degree: Master of Science Title of Project Paper/Research Report/Dissertation/Thesis (“this Work”): Tissue Culture, Histological and Pigment Analysis of Hylocereus polyrhizus (Weber) Britton and Rose Field of Study: Plant Biotechnology (Biology and Biochemistry) I do solemnly and sincerely declare that: (1) I am the sole author/writer of this Work; (2) This Work is original; (3) Any use of any work in which copyright exists was done by way of fair dealing and for permitted purposes and any excerpt or extract from, or reference to or reproduction of any copyright work has been disclosed expressly and sufficiently and the title of the Work and its authorship have been acknowledged in this Work; (4) I do not have any actual knowledge nor do I ought reasonably to know that the making of this work constitutes an infringement of any copyright work; (5) I hereby assign all and every rights in the copyright to this Work to the University of Malaya (“UM”), who henceforth shall be owner of the copyright in this Work and that any reproduction or use in any form or by any means whatsoever is prohibited without the written consent of UM having been first had and obtained; (6) I am fully aware that if in the course of making this Work I have infringed any copyright whether intentionally or otherwise, I may be subject to legal action or any other action as may be determined by UM.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft RECOVERY PLAN
    Winkler cactus (Pediocactus winkleri) AND San Rafael cactus (Pediocactus despainii) Draft RECOVERY PLAN December 2015 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado DISCLAIMER Recovery plans use the best available information to identify reasonable actions for protecting and recovering listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, or others. Attainment of recovery objectives and availability of funds are subject to budgetary and other constraints as well as the need to address other priorities. Nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment or requirement for any Federal agency to obligate or pay funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341, or any other law or regulation. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views, official position, or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in plan formulation other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director. Approved plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery actions. The literature citation for this document should read: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Winkler cactus (Pediocactus winkleri) and San Rafael cactus (Pediocactus despainii) recovery plan. Technical/agency draft. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. xii + 133 pp. Additional copies of the draft document can be obtained from: Utah Ecological Services Office U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • ALFABETISCHE TERMENLIJST Pagina 2 a a Z
    ALFABETISCHE TERMENLIJST Pagina 2 A a z. alpha. A = afk. adenine: toegepast in schematische weergave vd. bouw van DNA en RNA. a. = afk. Lat. anno: in het jaar. a-, an- = voorvoegsel met de betekenis: niet, zonder. Å = ångstrom: verouderde lengteeenheid; 1 millimeter is gelijk aan 10 miljoen ångstrom; v. nm, afk. van nanometer. Aalwijn, Aalwee N. ZAfr. = Aloe spp. (Asphodelaceae), ook enkele aloë-achtige verwante soorten. Aaron's Beard N. = Opuntia leucotricha (Cactaceae). Aaron's Rod N. = Koningskaars: Verbascum thapsus (Scrophulariaceae). ABA z. abscisic acid. abaxial ADJ. = aan de vd. as verwijderde zijde, aan de onderzijde (ve. blad); syn. dorsal; ant. adaxial, ventral. abbreviate ADJ. = afgekort. ABC Islands N. = Aruba, Bonaire & Curaçao: de voormalig Ned. eilanden die, tov. de andere Kleine Antillen ver naar het Westen, voor de kust van Venezulela liggen; v. Leeward Islands, Windward Islands. aberrant ADJ. = afwijkend, niet normaal, ongewoon, iets verschilled vh. type; syn. abnormal. abiogenesis N. = veronderstelde ontwikkeling van levende organismen uit dood anorganisch materiaal. abiotic ADJ. = abiotisch: btr. factoren uit de niet-levende omgeving die het leven van planten en dieren beïnvloeden; bv. beschikbaar water, pH vd. bodem, kooldioxidegehalte vd. lucht en licht; v. biotic. abnormal ADJ. = ongewoon, abnormaal, afwijkend; v. aberrant. aboriginal ADJ. = oorspronkelijk, inheems; btr. plant die van nature in een gebied thuis hoort; syn. native, indigeneous; ant. exotic. aborted ADJ. = defect, onvruchtbaar, onvolledig ontwikkeld. abortion N. = het feit dat een orgaan of deel vd. plant zich niet ontwikkelt of in de volwassen plant niet meer aanwezig is. abortive ADJ. = al in een vroeg stadium onvolledig ontwikkeld. Abrojo Sp. N. = 1) Opuntia tunicata (Cactaceae) 2) ook O.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT FINDING OF NO SIGNFICANT IMPACT San Rafael Desert Travel Management Plan DOI-BLM-UT-G020-2018-0004-EA August 2020 Price Field Office 125 South 600 West Price, Utah 84501 435-636-3600 San Rafael Desert Travel Management Plan DOI-BLM-UT-G020-2018-0004-EA FINDING OF NO SIGNFICANT IMPACT I have reviewed the San Rafael Desert Travel Management Plan Environmental Assessment (EA) DOI-BLM-UT-G020-2018-0004-EA. After considering the environmental effects as described in the EA, and incorporated herein, I have determined that Alternative D, as identified in the EA and modified in the Decision Record (Modified Alternative D), will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment and that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required to be prepared. I have determined that the proposed action, which is to designate a comprehensive off-highway vehicle (OHV) travel management plan (TMP) for the San Rafael Desert Travel Management Area (TMA), is in conformance with the approved 2008 Price Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (2008 RMP) and is consistent with applicable plans and policies of county, state, Tribal and Federal agencies. This finding is based on my consideration of the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) criteria for significance (40 CFR 1508.27) regarding the context and the intensity of impacts described in the EA. Context The TMA that forms the basis of the San Rafael Desert TMP contains 377,609 acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM)-managed lands, and an existing road inventory containing 1,180.8 miles of roads.
    [Show full text]
  • The Early Years of Cultivation I Primi Anni Di Coltivazione
    Cactus & Co. – cultivation – cultivation – cactus nordamericani north american cacti Pediocactusi primi anni di the early coltivazione years of Text & Photos: Jean Bonnefond cultivation Introduzione Introduction Alla fine del 2007, in seguito alla pubblicazione di un At the end of 2007, following the publication of an ar- articolo sui Pediocactus sulla rivista Succulentes, sono ticle of mine on Pediocactus in the journal Succulentes, stato invitato a tenere presso l’ELK 2009 una confe- I was invited to give a lecture at ELK 2009 dedicated renza dedicata a questo genere. Dopo aver accettato to this genus. I accepted the invitation, but decided l’invito, mi è parso subito logico non ripercorrere straight away not to go back over what I had written quanto già scritto nel precedente articolo. Incomin- in the previous article. I was beginning to have a fair ciavo ad avere una buona conoscenza dei Pediocactus a knowledge of Pediocactus after my numerous trips to seguito dei miei numerosi viaggi negli Stati Uniti e in the United States, where in particular I had travelled particolare nel vasto settore intorno a Four Corners, e in the huge area around Four Corners; and I had long il mio interesse sulla coppia Pediocactus – Sclerocactus been extremely interested in the pair Pediocactus - era vivo ormai da tempo. Sclerocactus. Avevo già sperimentato all’inizio degli anni ’90 la In the early 1990s I had already experimented with semina di queste cactacee, rigorosamente coltivate growing these cacti from seed, rigorously cultivating sulle proprie radici, e, quindi mi proposi di incentra- them on their own roots, and so I thought I would re la conferenza sull’esperienza acquisita in materia.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 1995
    Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 187 / Wednesday, September 27, 1995 / Notices 49855 considered necessary for conservation of Authority: The authority for this action is recovery levels for downlisting or the species, establish criteria for the Section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, delisting them, and estimate time and recovery levels for downlisting or 16 U.S.C. 1533(f). cost for implementing the recovery delisting them, and estimate time and Dated: September 21, 1995. measures needed. cost for implementing the recovery Linda LaClaire, The Endangered Species Act (Act) of measures needed. Acting Field Supervisor. 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et The Endangered Species Act of 1973 [FR Doc. 95±23955 Filed 9±26±95; 8:45 am] seq.), requires the development of (Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et BILLING CODE 4310±55±M recovery plans for listed species unless seq.), requires the development of such a plan would not promote the recovery plans for listed species unless conservation of a particular species. such a plan would not promote the Availability of a Draft Recovery Plan Section 4(f) of the Act, as amended in conservation of a particular species. for the Utah Pediocactus: San Rafael 1988, requires that public notice and an Section 4(f) of the Act, as amended in Cactus (Pediocactus despainii) and opportunity for public review and 1988, requires that a public notice and Winkler Cactus (Pediocactus winkleri) comment be provided during recovery an opportunity for public review and for Review and Comment plan development. The Service will comment be provided during recovery consider all information presented plan development.
    [Show full text]
  • A Vascular Flora of the San Rafael Swell, Utah
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 43 Number 1 Article 6 1-31-1983 A vascular flora of the San Rafael Swell, Utah James G. Harris Brigham Young University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Harris, James G. (1983) "A vascular flora of the San Rafael Swell, Utah," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 43 : No. 1 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol43/iss1/6 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]. A VASCULAR FLORA OF THE SAN RAFAEL SWELL, UTAH' James G. Harris^ Abstract.— The vegetation of the San Rafael Swell in southeastern Utah is examined based on personal field col- lections and previously collected herbarium specimens in the Brigham Young University Herbarium (BRY). An anno- tated checklist includes information on frequency of occurrence and habitat preference for each entity. Treated are 491 vascular plant taxa from 59 families. The San Rafael Swell is the eroded rem- (1981), Welsh (1978, 1980a, 1980b), Welsh massive in nant of a domal anticline, oval and Atwood (1981), Welsh and Moore (1973), shape, stretching along northeasterly axis a Welsh and Reveal (1977), Welsh et al. (1981); in from Capitol Reef National Park northern monocotyledons, Cronquist et al. (1977). Wayne County to the foot of the Tavaputs The checklist includes 478 vascular plant Plateau in Carbon County.
    [Show full text]