DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment Spring Creek

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment Spring Creek United States Department of Environmental Agriculture Forest Service Assessment June 2012 Spring Creek Ocoee/Hiwassee Ranger District, Cherokee National Forest McMinn, Monroe and Polk Counties, Tennessee For Information Contact: Janan Hay 3171 Hwy 64 Benton, TN 37307 http://www.fs.usda.gov/cherokee The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Environmental Assessment Spring Creek Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Document Structure .................................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 1 Purpose and Need for Action ...................................................................................................... 2 Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................... 3 Decision Framework ................................................................................................................... 7 Public Involvement ..................................................................................................................... 7 Issues ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ................................................................................................... 8 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................. 8 Alternatives Not Considered in Detail ........................................................................................ 9 Design Criteria Common to All Alternatives ............................................................................ 10 Comparison of Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 11 Environmental Consequences........................................................................................................................ 12 Biological Factors ..................................................................................................................... 12 Social/Economic Factors ........................................................................................................... 69 Physical Factors ........................................................................................................................ 82 Consultation and Coordination ...................................................................................................................... 97 References ..................................................................................................................................................... 99 Environmental Assessment Spring Creek INTRODUCTION Document Structure ______________________________ The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into five parts: • Introduction: The section includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. • Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. This discussion also includes possible mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. • Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow. • Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment. • Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Tellico Ranger District Office in Tellico Plains, Tennessee. Background _____________________________________ This project area encompasses all or portions of Compartments 102, 104, 105, 106, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 126, 127, 128, 145, 146, 147, and 148. The area is approximately seven miles southeast of Etowah, nine miles northeast of Benton, and three miles northeast of Reliance, Tennessee. Figure 1 displays the location of the project area. Environmental Assessment Spring Creek Figure 1. Vicinity map Purpose and Need for Action _______________________ The Cherokee National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (RLRMP), approved in 2004, made broad decisions regarding allocation of land and measures necessary to manage National Forest resources. The RLRMP establishes direction for the multiple use management and sustained yield of goods and services for all National Forest System (NFS) lands within the Cherokee National Forest (CNF) boundaries. It describes how different areas of land should look and what resources could be provided from these lands now and in the future (desired future condition). The RLRMP further allocates land into Management Prescriptions (MPs). A MP is a selected grouping of National Forest lands with similar land and resource characteristics and similar management goals. MPs provide a more specific set of goals and objectives, which help lead to the Forest’s overall desired future condition (DFC). The seventeen compartments that comprise the Spring Creek project area are predominantly assigned to MP 9.H Restoration (57%) and 8.B Early Successional (20%). The remainder of the project area is allocated to: 7.B Scenic Corridors (2%), 9.F Rare Communities (<1%) and 11 Riparian Corridors (19%). These are estimations only, especially of the Riparian Prescription. The project area does contain MPs that no activities are actually proposed (i.e. 9.F). This is because the project area was selected using compartment boundaries and not MP boundaries. 2 Environmental Assessment Spring Creek The RLRMP (pages 118 to 168) describes the DFC and standards for management activities/practices that will lead to the DFC of the MPs within the project area. Where MPs are silent on specific goals, objectives and standards the forest wide goals, objectives and standards (pgs. 21-72) should be applied. The Forest uses rapid assessments at the watershed scale to identify opportunities that are ripe for decision. As part of the assessment for the Spring Creek watershed (CNF, 2007), current conditions were compared to the goals and objectives in the RLRMP. This assessment identified a need for vegetation treatments to increase early age class/early successional habitats and the need for an improved trail infrastructure to implement both the RLRMP and the Forest’s strategic plan for trails. There are approximately 2,870 acres of MP 8.B in the Spring Creek project area. Currently, approximately 3% of the 8.B MP is in early succession while the prescription has an objective of 10% to 17% early succession The 8.B MP emphasizes optimal to suitable habitat for a variety of upland game species and plants and animals associated with the lush re-growth of vegetation that follows a disturbance. The mix of habitat, measured at the landscape scale, is not in the optimal ratio to promote desired plant and animal species. The difference between the desired and existing conditions provides opportunities for management activities that can lead these areas toward this DFC. The purpose of the vegetation management portion of the proposed action is to provide wildlife habitat diversity through periodic or regularly scheduled activities accomplished through prescribed burning; mechanical and chemical
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Native Herbaceous Perennials and Ferns for Shade Gardens
    Green Spring Gardens 4603 Green Spring Rd ● Alexandria ● VA 22312 Phone: 703-642-5173 ● TTY: 703-803-3354 www.fairfaxcounty.gov/parks/greenspring NATIVE HERBACEOUS PERENNIALS AND FERNS FOR � SHADE GARDENS IN THE WASHINGTON, D.C. AREA � Native plants are species that existed in Virginia before Jamestown, Virginia was founded in 1607. They are uniquely adapted to local conditions. Native plants provide food and shelter for a myriad of birds, butterflies, and other wildlife. Best of all, gardeners can feel the satisfaction of preserving a part of our natural heritage while enjoying the beauty of native plants in the garden. Hardy herbaceous perennials form little or no woody tissue and live for several years. Some of these plants are short-lived and may live only three years, such as wild columbine, while others can live for decades. They are a group of plants that gardeners are very passionate about because of their lovely foliage and flowers, as well as their wide variety of textures, forms, and heights. Most of these plants are deciduous and die back to the ground in the winter. Ferns, in contrast, have no flowers but grace our gardens with their beautiful foliage. Herbaceous perennials and ferns are a joy to garden with because they are easily moved to create new design combinations and provide an ever-changing scene in the garden. They are appropriate for a wide range of shade gardens, from more formal gardens to naturalistic woodland gardens. The following are useful definitions: Cultivar (cv.) – a cultivated variety designated by single quotes, such as ‘Autumn Bride’.
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016
    Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Revised February 24, 2017 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org C ur Alleghany rit Ashe Northampton Gates C uc Surry am k Stokes P d Rockingham Caswell Person Vance Warren a e P s n Hertford e qu Chowan r Granville q ot ui a Mountains Watauga Halifax m nk an Wilkes Yadkin s Mitchell Avery Forsyth Orange Guilford Franklin Bertie Alamance Durham Nash Yancey Alexander Madison Caldwell Davie Edgecombe Washington Tyrrell Iredell Martin Dare Burke Davidson Wake McDowell Randolph Chatham Wilson Buncombe Catawba Rowan Beaufort Haywood Pitt Swain Hyde Lee Lincoln Greene Rutherford Johnston Graham Henderson Jackson Cabarrus Montgomery Harnett Cleveland Wayne Polk Gaston Stanly Cherokee Macon Transylvania Lenoir Mecklenburg Moore Clay Pamlico Hoke Union d Cumberland Jones Anson on Sampson hm Duplin ic Craven Piedmont R nd tla Onslow Carteret co S Robeson Bladen Pender Sandhills Columbus New Hanover Tidewater Coastal Plain Brunswick THE COUNTIES AND PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF NORTH CAROLINA Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina 2016 Compiled by Laura Gadd Robinson, Botanist John T. Finnegan, Information Systems Manager North Carolina Natural Heritage Program N.C. Department of Natural and Cultural Resources Raleigh, NC 27699-1651 www.ncnhp.org This list is dynamic and is revised frequently as new data become available. New species are added to the list, and others are dropped from the list as appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Funding (Total $2,552,481) $15,000 2019
    CURRICULUM VITAE TENNESSEE AQUARIUM CONSERVATION INSTITUTE 175 BAYLOR SCHOOL RD CHATTANOOGA, TN 37405 RESEARCH FUNDING (TOTAL $2,552,481) $15,000 2019. Global Wildlife Conservation. Rediscovering the critically endangered Syr-Darya Shovelnose Sturgeon. $10,000 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Propagation of the Common Logperch as a host for endangered mussel larvae. $8,420 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Monitoring for the Laurel Dace. $4,417 2019. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. Examining interactions between Laurel Dace (Chrosomus saylori) and sunfish $12,670 2019. Trout Unlimited. Southern Appalachian Brook Trout propagation for reintroduction to Shell Creek. $106,851 2019. Private Donation. Microplastic accumulation in fishes of the southeast. $1,471. 2019. AZFA-Clark Waldram Conservation Grant. Mayfly propagation for captive propagation programs. $20,000. 2019. Tennessee Valley Authority. Assessment of genetic diversity within Blotchside Logperch. $25,000. 2019. Riverview Foundation. Launching Hidden Rivers in the Southeast. $11,170. 2018. Trout Unlimited. Propagation of Southern Appalachian Brook Trout for Supplemental Reintroduction. $1,471. 2018. AZFA Clark Waldram Conservation Grant. Climate Change Impacts on Headwater Stream Vertebrates in Southeastern United States $1,000. 2018. Hamilton County Health Department. Step 1 Teaching Garden Grants for Sequoyah School Garden. $41,000. 2018. Riverview Foundation. River Teachers: Workshops for Educators. $1,000. 2018. Tennessee Valley Authority. Youth Freshwater Summit $20,000. 2017. Tennessee Valley Authority. Lake Sturgeon Propagation. $7,500 2017. Trout Unlimited. Brook Trout Propagation. $24,783. 2017. Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency. Assessment of Percina macrocephala and Etheostoma cinereum populations within the Duck River Basin. $35,000. 2017. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Status surveys for conservation status of Ashy (Etheostoma cinereum) and Redlips (Etheostoma maydeni) Darters.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE
    Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, Working Draft of 17 March 2004 -- LILIACEAE LILIACEAE de Jussieu 1789 (Lily Family) (also see AGAVACEAE, ALLIACEAE, ALSTROEMERIACEAE, AMARYLLIDACEAE, ASPARAGACEAE, COLCHICACEAE, HEMEROCALLIDACEAE, HOSTACEAE, HYACINTHACEAE, HYPOXIDACEAE, MELANTHIACEAE, NARTHECIACEAE, RUSCACEAE, SMILACACEAE, THEMIDACEAE, TOFIELDIACEAE) As here interpreted narrowly, the Liliaceae constitutes about 11 genera and 550 species, of the Northern Hemisphere. There has been much recent investigation and re-interpretation of evidence regarding the upper-level taxonomy of the Liliales, with strong suggestions that the broad Liliaceae recognized by Cronquist (1981) is artificial and polyphyletic. Cronquist (1993) himself concurs, at least to a degree: "we still await a comprehensive reorganization of the lilies into several families more comparable to other recognized families of angiosperms." Dahlgren & Clifford (1982) and Dahlgren, Clifford, & Yeo (1985) synthesized an early phase in the modern revolution of monocot taxonomy. Since then, additional research, especially molecular (Duvall et al. 1993, Chase et al. 1993, Bogler & Simpson 1995, and many others), has strongly validated the general lines (and many details) of Dahlgren's arrangement. The most recent synthesis (Kubitzki 1998a) is followed as the basis for familial and generic taxonomy of the lilies and their relatives (see summary below). References: Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (1998, 2003); Tamura in Kubitzki (1998a). Our “liliaceous” genera (members of orders placed in the Lilianae) are therefore divided as shown below, largely following Kubitzki (1998a) and some more recent molecular analyses. ALISMATALES TOFIELDIACEAE: Pleea, Tofieldia. LILIALES ALSTROEMERIACEAE: Alstroemeria COLCHICACEAE: Colchicum, Uvularia. LILIACEAE: Clintonia, Erythronium, Lilium, Medeola, Prosartes, Streptopus, Tricyrtis, Tulipa. MELANTHIACEAE: Amianthium, Anticlea, Chamaelirium, Helonias, Melanthium, Schoenocaulon, Stenanthium, Veratrum, Toxicoscordion, Trillium, Xerophyllum, Zigadenus.
    [Show full text]
  • ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES
    ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES Tables STEPHEN T. ROSS University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London © 2013 by The Regents of the University of California ISBN 978-0-520-24945-5 uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 1 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 2 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 1.1 Families Composing 95% of North American Freshwater Fish Species Ranked by the Number of Native Species Number Cumulative Family of species percent Cyprinidae 297 28 Percidae 186 45 Catostomidae 71 51 Poeciliidae 69 58 Ictaluridae 46 62 Goodeidae 45 66 Atherinopsidae 39 70 Salmonidae 38 74 Cyprinodontidae 35 77 Fundulidae 34 80 Centrarchidae 31 83 Cottidae 30 86 Petromyzontidae 21 88 Cichlidae 16 89 Clupeidae 10 90 Eleotridae 10 91 Acipenseridae 8 92 Osmeridae 6 92 Elassomatidae 6 93 Gobiidae 6 93 Amblyopsidae 6 94 Pimelodidae 6 94 Gasterosteidae 5 95 source: Compiled primarily from Mayden (1992), Nelson et al. (2004), and Miller and Norris (2005). uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 3 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 3.1 Biogeographic Relationships of Species from a Sample of Fishes from the Ouachita River, Arkansas, at the Confl uence with the Little Missouri River (Ross, pers. observ.) Origin/ Pre- Pleistocene Taxa distribution Source Highland Stoneroller, Campostoma spadiceum 2 Mayden 1987a; Blum et al. 2008; Cashner et al. 2010 Blacktail Shiner, Cyprinella venusta 3 Mayden 1987a Steelcolor Shiner, Cyprinella whipplei 1 Mayden 1987a Redfi n Shiner, Lythrurus umbratilis 4 Mayden 1987a Bigeye Shiner, Notropis boops 1 Wiley and Mayden 1985; Mayden 1987a Bullhead Minnow, Pimephales vigilax 4 Mayden 1987a Mountain Madtom, Noturus eleutherus 2a Mayden 1985, 1987a Creole Darter, Etheostoma collettei 2a Mayden 1985 Orangebelly Darter, Etheostoma radiosum 2a Page 1983; Mayden 1985, 1987a Speckled Darter, Etheostoma stigmaeum 3 Page 1983; Simon 1997 Redspot Darter, Etheostoma artesiae 3 Mayden 1985; Piller et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Part IV: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity to Monitor
    Part IV: Scoring Criteria for the Index of Biotic Integrity to Monitor Fish Communities in Wadeable Streams in the Coosa and Tennessee Drainage Basins of the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion of Georgia Georgia Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Resources Division Fisheries Management Section 2020 Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………………………… ……... Pg. 1 Map of Ridge and Valley Ecoregion………………………………..……............... Pg. 3 Table 1. State Listed Fish in the Ridge and Valley Ecoregion……………………. Pg. 4 Table 2. IBI Metrics and Scoring Criteria………………………………………….Pg. 5 References………………………………………………….. ………………………Pg. 7 Appendix 1…………………………………………………………………. ………Pg. 8 Coosa Basin Group (ACT) MSR Graphs..………………………………….Pg. 9 Tennessee Basin Group (TEN) MSR Graphs……………………………….Pg. 17 Ridge and Valley Ecoregion Fish List………………………………………Pg. 25 i Introduction The Ridge and Valley ecoregion is one of the six Level III ecoregions found in Georgia (Part 1, Figure 1). It is drained by two major river basins, the Coosa and the Tennessee, in the northwestern corner of Georgia. The Ridge and Valley ecoregion covers nearly 3,000 square miles (United States Census Bureau 2000) and includes all or portions of 10 counties (Figure 1), bordering the Piedmont ecoregion to the south and the Blue Ridge ecoregion to the east. A small portion of the Southwestern Appalachians ecoregion is located in the upper northwestern corner of the Ridge and Valley ecoregion. The biotic index developed by the GAWRD is based on Level III ecoregion delineations (Griffith et al. 2001). The metrics and scoring criteria adapted to the Ridge and Valley ecoregion were developed from biomonitoring samples collected in the two major river basins that drain the Ridge and Valley ecoregion, the Coosa (ACT) and the Tennessee (TEN).
    [Show full text]
  • Pest Risk Analysis for Microstegium Vimineum
    EUROPEAN AND MEDITERRANEAN PLANT PROTECTION ORGANIZATION ORGANISATION EUROPEENNE ET MEDITERRANEENNE POUR LA PROTECTION DES PLANTES 16-21488 Pest Risk Analysis for Microstegium vimineum Microstegium vimineum in the USA. © Luke Flory September 2015 EPPO 21 Boulevard Richard Lenoir 75011 Paris www.eppo.int [email protected] This risk assessment follows the EPPO Standard PM 5/3(5) Decision-support scheme for quarantine pests (available at http://archives.eppo.int/EPPOStandards/pra.htm) and uses the terminology defined in ISPM 5 Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms (available at https://www.ippc.int/index.php). This document was first elaborated by an Expert Working Group and then reviewed by the Panel on Invasive Alien Plants and if relevant other EPPO bodies. The PRA was reviewed by the EU IAS Scientific Forum in 2016. Cite this document as: EPPO (2014) Pest risk analysis for Microstegium vimineum. EPPO, Paris. Available at http://www.eppo.int/QUARANTINE/Pest_Risk_Analysis/PRA_intro.htm 16-21488 (15-21051) Pest Risk Analysis for Microstegium vimineum This PRA follows the EPPO Decision-support scheme for quarantine pests PM 5/3 (5). A preliminary draft was prepared by Ms Asuman Ergün (PPO of Turkey). This document has been reviewed by an Expert Working Group (EWG) that met at the EPPO Headquarters in Paris, France on the 2014-10-21/24. This EWG was composed of: Mr Giuseppe Brundu, University of Sassari, Italy Ms Asuman Ergün, Plant Protection Organization of Turkey Mr Luke Flory, University of Florida, USA Mr Ari Novy, US Botanic Garden, USA Mr Johan van Valkenburg, Plant Protection Organization of the Netherlands.
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Generating Plants
    PNNL-14468 Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Generating Plants M. R. Sackschewsky January 2004 Prepared for the License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor Battelle Memorial Institute, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY operated by BATTELLE for the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 PNNL-14468 Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluation for Operating Commercial Nuclear Power Generating Plants M. R. Sackschewsky January 2004 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC06-76RL01830 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, and related implementing regulations of the jurisdictional federal agencies, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • * This Is an Excerpt from Protected Animals of Georgia Published By
    Common Name: STARGAZING MINNOW Scientific Name: Phenacobius uranops Cope Other Commonly Used Names: none Previously Used Scientific Names: none Family: Cyprinidae Rarity Ranks: G4/S1 State Legal Status: Threatened Federal Legal Status: none Description: The stargazing minnow is a very long, slender, silvery fish with small scales and a prominent snout overhanging a sucker-like mouth. It attains a maximum total length of about 120 mm (4.7 in). There are five species in this distinctive genus, which also includes the fatlips minnow (P. crassilabrum) and the riffle minnow (P. catostomus) in Georgia. The stargazing minnow is olive dorsally with a brassy mid-dorsal stripe. The prominent mid-lateral stripe is variously flecked with silver to metallic blue and is narrower than that of the fatlips minnow. The lower portion of the body is white, and the pelvic and anal fins are yellowish-olive to white. The dorsal, caudal, and pectoral fins are light olive. The stargazing minnow exhibits no sexually dimorphic coloration. The name "stargazing" refers to the upward tilt of the eyes. Similar Species: This species is very similar to other members of Phenacobius, but none of these co-occur with the stargazing minnow in Georgia. The bigeye chub (Hybopsis amblops) may appear similar and is often co-occurring. In contrast to the stargazing minnow, the bigeye chub has a less-elongated body and does not have fleshy, sucker-like lips. The stargazing minnow can be separated from members of the sucker family (Catostomidae) by having an anal fin that is located closer to the pelvic fins than the caudal fin (vs.
    [Show full text]
  • September 24, 2018
    September 24, 2018 Sent via Federal eRulemaking Portal to: http://www.regulations.gov Docket Nos. FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0006 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0007 FWS-HQ-ES-2018-0009 Bridget Fahey Chief, Division of Conservation and Classification U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041-3808 [email protected] Craig Aubrey Chief, Division of Environmental Review Ecological Services Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: ES Falls Church, VA 22041 [email protected] Samuel D. Rauch, III National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources 1315 East-West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 [email protected] Re: Proposed Revisions of Endangered Species Act Regulations Dear Mr. Aubrey, Ms. Fahey, and Mr. Rauch: The Southern Environmental Law Center (“SELC”) submits the following comments in opposition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s and National Marine Fisheries Service’s proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act’s implementing regulations.1 We submit these comments on behalf of 57 organizations working to protect the natural resources of the 1 Revision of the Regulations for Prohibitions to Threatened Wildlife and Plants, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,174 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 17); Revision of Regulations for Interagency Cooperation, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,178 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 402); Revision of the Regulations for Listing Species and Designating Critical Habitat, 83 Fed. Reg. 35,193 (proposed July 25, 2018) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Geological Survey of Alabama Calibration of The
    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF ALABAMA Berry H. (Nick) Tew, Jr. State Geologist ECOSYSTEMS INVESTIGATIONS PROGRAM CALIBRATION OF THE INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY FOR THE SOUTHERN PLAINS ICHTHYOREGION IN ALABAMA OPEN-FILE REPORT 1210 by Patrick E. O'Neil and Thomas E. Shepard Prepared in cooperation with the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Tuscaloosa, Alabama 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................ 1 Introduction.......................................................... 2 Acknowledgments .................................................... 6 Objectives........................................................... 7 Study area .......................................................... 7 Southern Plains ichthyoregion ...................................... 7 Methods ............................................................ 9 IBI sample collection ............................................. 9 Habitat measures............................................... 11 Habitat metrics ........................................... 12 The human disturbance gradient ................................... 16 IBI metrics and scoring criteria..................................... 20 Designation of guilds....................................... 21 Results and discussion................................................ 23 Sampling sites and collection results . 23 Selection and scoring of Southern Plains IBI metrics . 48 Metrics selected for the
    [Show full text]
  • (Poaceae: Panicoideae) in Thailand
    Systematics of Arundinelleae and Andropogoneae, subtribes Chionachninae, Dimeriinae and Germainiinae (Poaceae: Panicoideae) in Thailand Thesis submitted to the University of Dublin, Trinity College for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) by Atchara Teerawatananon 2009 Research conducted under the supervision of Dr. Trevor R. Hodkinson School of Natural Sciences Department of Botany Trinity College University of Dublin, Ireland I Declaration I hereby declare that the contents of this thesis are entirely my own work (except where otherwise stated) and that it has not been previously submitted as an exercise for a degree to this or any other university. I agree that library of the University of Dublin, Trinity College may lend or copy this thesis subject to the source being acknowledged. _______________________ Atchara Teerawatananon II Abstract This thesis has provided a comprehensive taxonomic account of tribe Arundinelleae, and subtribes Chionachninae, Dimeriinae and Germainiinae of the tribe Andropogoneae in Thailand. Complete floristic treatments of these taxa have been completed for the Flora of Thailand project. Keys to genera and species, species descriptions, synonyms, typifications, illustrations, distribution maps and lists of specimens examined, are also presented. Fourteen species and three genera of tribe Arundinelleae, three species and two genera of subtribe Chionachninae, seven species of subtribe Dimeriinae, and twelve species and two genera of Germainiinae, were recorded in Thailand, of which Garnotia ciliata and Jansenella griffithiana were recorded for the first time for Thailand. Three endemic grasses, Arundinella kerrii, A. kokutensis and Dimeria kerrii were described as new species to science. Phylogenetic relationships among major subfamilies in Poaceae and among major tribes within Panicoideae were evaluated using parsimony analysis of plastid DNA regions, trnL-F and atpB- rbcL, and a nuclear ribosomal DNA region, ITS.
    [Show full text]