DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Assessment BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT AND BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR THE 2015 JOE’S VALLEY BOULDERING PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FOREST FERRON/PRICE RANGER DISTRICT EMERY COUNTY, UTAH Prepared by: ________________________________________ Date________________ Jeff Jewkes, Wildlife Biologist Reviewed by: _______________________________________ Date ________________ Kim Anderson, Forest Ecologist ________________________________________ Date ________________ Pamela Manders, Forest Fisheries Biologist Joe’s Valley Bouldering Project Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation Page 1 I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) is to review the potential effects of the Joe’s Valley Bouldering Project on threatened, endangered, or proposed plant and animal species (TEP) and to determine whether consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is necessary. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (PL 93-205, as amended) requires federal agencies to ensure that any activities they authorize, fund, or carry out, do not jeopardize the continued existence of any wildlife species federally listed as Threatened or Endangered (Section 7). Consultation with the USFWS is required if threatened or endangered (T&E) species, or their critical habitat may be affected by proposed actions. This BA/BE is prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536 (c)), and follows standards established in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2671.2 and 2672.4). The USDA, Forest Service has developed policy regarding the designation of sensitive plant and animal species (FSM 2670.32). A sensitive species is defined (FSM 2670.5) as those plant and animal species identified by the Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern as evidenced by: 1) significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density or 2) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution. The Biological Evaluation is an analysis of which sensitive species may occur in the project area and whether any impacts on these species or their habitat are anticipated which will adversely affect their viability. II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL A. Summary of the Proposed Action The Ferron/Price Ranger District of the Manti-La Sal National Forest proposes to: Construct designated fire rings at dispersed campsites; dismantle and naturalize redundant user created fire rings. Approximately 12 fire rings would be installed. Contain dispersed campsites and parking areas as needed to minimize vehicle impacts to soils/vegetation and nearby riparian areas. Native rocks and/or barrier posts/rails would be utilized. Harden high use parking areas with road base to prevent soil erosion. Install a vault toilet facility at the angler access parking area in Straight Canyon (Left Fork). Install kiosks and signage promoting climbing ethics and “Leave No Trace” principles. Construct rock retaining walls at boulders to level landing areas; focusing on boulders receiving heavy use and/or located on slopes greater than 10%. Approximately 90 boulders would receive treatment. Joe’s Valley Bouldering Project Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation Page 2 Develop a sustainable trail network by hardening trails to bouldering sites displaying obvious soil erosion with native rock; re-route access trails as needed to reduce grades; close and rehabilitate redundant trails. Approximately 2.5 miles of trail would receive treatment. Mark trail beginning points and install reassurance markers as needed so that trails are easily identified and followed. B. Purpose and Need Bouldering and associated camping at Joe’s Valley have contributed to recreation resource impacts throughout the area. Multiple informal trails, soil erosion, bare soil, vegetation trampling, and numerous fire sites are commonly observed impacts. Data for National Forest System (NFS) lands included in the Baseline Assessment documents the following: 60.6% (114) of the bouldering sites inventoried are located on NFS lands. 41 of these boulders were rated as receiving heavy use. 70 of these boulders are located on slopes in excess of 10%. 5.0 miles of informal trails are located on NFS lands. 1.8 miles of these 5.0 miles display obvious soil erosion. 28 parking areas are located on NFS lands. The purpose for this project is to mitigate current impacts to soils and vegetation in the Joe’s Valley Bouldering area while providing quality recreation opportunities and protecting resources. The need for this project is guided by legal requirements specified in Forest Plan General and Management Unit Direction below. Specifically: 1) There is a need to develop sustainable, resource sensitive access trails to bouldering sites. 2) There is a need to develop sustainable landing zones around boulders. 3) There is a need to contain motorized use at dispersed campsites and parking areas to protect resources and provide for user safety. C. Project Area Description/Affected Environment The proposed Joe’s Valley Bouldering Project is located in east-central Utah, approximately 9 miles northwest of the town of Orangeville, in Emery County, Utah. The action area boundary or analysis area for this BA/BE is the Joe’s Valley Bouldering area. The Joe’s Valley Bouldering area generally describes the region receiving bouldering use. Bouldering areas can be generally categorized into three geographical regions: Left Fork of Straight Canyon, along Utah highway State Route (SR) 29, Joe’s Valley Bouldering Project Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation Page 3 Right Fork (Cottonwood Canyon, along Forest System Road (FSR 50040), and New Joe’s (Grimes Wash near Utah Highway 57) (see maps below). Topography is generally similar in all of the bouldering areas; characterized by rocky, rugged terrain in the vicinity of the roadway, with vertical cliff walls above the climbing areas. Elevation ranges from approximately 6,500 ft. – 8,200 ft. The vegetation within the project area varies slightly with topography and elevation with nine different cover types; however, the majority of the bouldering sites (161 out of 192) are within the Colorado Plateau Pinyon Juniper Woodland according to SWReGAP data (USGS 2004). The Description for the Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland vegetation cover type found is listed listed below. The description is derived from the SWReGAP definitions of each vegetation cover type (USGS 2004). This cover type has not been ground-truthed and may differ from actual vegetation within the project area. Colorado Plateau Pinyon-Juniper Woodland This ecological system occurs in dry mountains and foothills of the Colorado Plateau region including the Western Slope of Colorado to the Wasatch Range, south to the Mogollon Rim of Arizona and east into the northwestern corner of New Mexico. It is typically found at lower elevations ranging from 4,900 to 8,000 ft. These woodlands occur on warm, dry sites on mountain slopes, mesas, plateaus, and ridges. Severe climatic events occurring during the growing season, such as frosts and drought, are thought to limit the distribution of pinyon- juniper woodlands to relatively narrow altitudinal belts on mountainsides. Soils supporting this system vary in texture ranging from stony, cobbly, gravelly sandy loams to clay loam or clay. Pinyon pine and/or Utah juniper dominate the tree canopy. In the southern portion of the Colorado Plateau in northern Arizona and northwestern New Mexico, one-seed juniper (Juniperus monosperma) and hybrids of juniper may dominate or codominate the tree canopy. Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum) may codominate or replace Utah juniper at higher elevations. Understory layers are variable and may be dominated by shrubs, graminoids, or be absent. Associated species include greenleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula), big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), littleleaf mountain mahogany, mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus montanus), blackbrush, Stansbury cliffrose (Purshia stansburiana), antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii), blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis), James’ galleta (Pleuraphis jamesii), or muttongrass (Poa fendleriana). This system occurs at higher elevations than Great Basin Pinyon-Juniper Woodland and Colorado Plateau shrubland systems where sympatric. The Joe’s Valley Bouldering area is home to a variety of wildlife species including: elk, deer, bear, mountain lion, raptors, small mammals, and a variety of songbirds. The escarpment above the climbing areas is ideal nesting habitat for golden eagles and peregrine falcons. The following Management Unit Direction also applies: Joe’s Valley Bouldering Project Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation Page 4 GWR (General Big-Game Winter Range) in Straight Canyon and in the Grimes Wash Area. Manage recreational activities so they do not conflict with wildlife use of habitat (page III-62). RPN (Riparian) in both Straight and Cottonwood Canyons Semi primitive non-motorized, semi primitive motorized, roaded natural and rural recreation opportunities may be provided (page III-70). MMA (Leasable Minerals Development) in the Grimes Wash Area Manage dispersed recreation opportunities on existing MMA units to avoid conflicts with mineral activities and provide for public safety (page III-81). UC (Utility Corridor) in Cottonwood Canyon Manage dispersed recreation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • US Fish and Wildlife Service
    BARNEBY REED-MUSTARD (S. barnebyi ) CLAY REED-MUSTARD SHRUBBY REED-MUSTARD (S,arguillacea) (S. suffrutescens) .-~ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UTAH REED—MUSTARDS: CLAY REED-MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE ARGILLACEA) BARNEBY REED—MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE BARNEBYI) SI-IRUBBY REED-MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE SUFFRUTESCENS) RECOVERY PLAN Prepared by Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Approved: Date: (~19~- Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect the species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will only be attained and funds expended contingent upon appropriations, priorities, and other budgetary constraints. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approvals of any individuals or agencies, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, involved in the plan formulation. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as an~roved Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature Citation should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Utah reed—mustards: clay reed—mustard (Schoenocrambe argillacea), Barneby reed-mustard (Schoenocrambe barnebyl), shrubby reed—mustard (Schoenacranibe suffrutescens) recovery plan. Denver, Colorado. 22 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Telephone: 301/492—6403 or 1—800—582—3421 The fee for the plan varies depending on the number of pages of the plan.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Nontraditional Agricultural Exports Regulatory Guide for Latin America and the Caribbean
    ` NONTRADITIONAL AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS REGULATORY GUIDE FOR LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean U.S. Agency for International Development Office of Pesticide Programs U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. U.S.A. Nontraditional Agricultural Exports Regulatory Guide for Latin America and the Caribbean Acknowledgements Several branches and many individuals of the U.S. Government contributed to the preparation and review of this guide. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) extends special recognition to the Agriculture and Natural Resources Management Technical Services Project (LACTECH II) of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which planned the document, managed its development, and provided overall technical direction. EPA wishes to thank Robert Kahn and Robert Bailey, LACTECH II Project Officers, who designed, promoted, and disseminated the contents of this guide; the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture for special assistance and collaboration; and all the U.S. Government branches cited herein. Initial funding for the preparation of this guide was provided by the Bureau for Latin America NTAE Regulatory Guide for LAC Countries iii and the Caribbean, USAID, to the LACTECH II Project. Additional funding for the editing, Spanish translation, and dissemination was provided by the AID/EPA Central American Project and the AID/EPA Mexico Project, both based at EPA. iv NTAE Regulatory Guide for LAC Countries Contents Page
    [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]
  • Chapter 3 R645-301-300 Biology
    Chapter 3 R645-301-300 Biology TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 3 BIOLOGY REGULATION DESCRIPTION PAGE R645-301-300 Biology............................................................................................ 3-1 R645-301-320 Environmental Description ............................................................. 3-1 R645-301-321 Vegetation Information................................................................... 3-1 321.100 Plant Communities............................................................................................ 3-1 321.200 Productivity of Land....................................................................................... 3-16 R645-301-322 Fish and Wildlife Information ...................................................... 3-17 322.210 Endangered or Protected Plants and Animals................................................. 3-28 322.220 Habitats and Areas of High Value .................................................................. 3-32 R645-301-323 Maps and Aerial Photographs....................................................... 3-33 323.200 Monitoring Stations ........................................................................................ 3-33 323.300 Protection Facilities ....................................................................................... 3-33 323.400 Plant Communities and Sample Locations ..................................................... 3-33 R645-301-330 Operation Plan ............................................................................. 3-34 R645-301-331
    [Show full text]
  • Inventory of Sensitive Species and Ecosystems in Utah, Endemic And
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
    [Show full text]
  • Schoenocrambe Barnebyi (Barneby Reed-Mustard)
    Schoenocrambe barnebyi (Barneby Reed-Mustard) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo by Tom Clark, National Park Service; used with permission. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Field Office – Ecological Services West Valley City, Utah 84119 July 2011 5-YEAR REVIEW Schoenocrambe barnebyi (Barneby reed-mustard) 1 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Purpose of 5-Year Reviews The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required by Section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since the time it was listed or since the most recent 5-year review. Based on the outcome of the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should: 1) be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species; 2) be changed in status from endangered to threatened; 3) be changed in status from threatened to endangered; or 4) remain unchanged in its current status. Our original decision to list a species as endangered or threatened is based on the five threat factors described in Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. These same five factors are considered in any subsequent reclassification or delisting decisions. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and we review new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed. If we recommend a change in listing status based on the results of the 5-year review, we must propose to do so through a separate rule-making process that includes public review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Guide for Barneby Reed-Mustard (Schoenocrambe Barnebyi)
    Plant Guide 1992). There are an estimated 2,000 individual plants BARNEBY REED- in existence (USDI-FWS, 1994). MUSTARD Consult the PLANTS Web site and your State Department of Natural Resources for this plant’s Schoenocrambe barnebyi (S.L. current status (e.g., threatened or endangered species, Welsh & N.D. Atwood) Rollins state noxious status, and wetland indicator values). Plant Symbol = SCBA80 Description General: Mustard family (Brassicaceae). Barneby Contributed by: USDA NRCS Idaho and Utah Plant reed-mustard is a perennial forb with multiple stems Materials Program arising from a branching woody caudex and taproot. The stems grow 10 to 35 cm (4 to 14 in) tall, and bear elliptical, entire leaves which can be hairy to glabrous and glaucus. The leaves are 13 to 51 mm (0.50 to 2.0 in) long and 4 to 24 mm (0.16 to 0.94 in) wide with 0.4 to 10 mm (0.02 to 0.40 in) long petioles. The flowers have four white to lavender petals, 10 to 12 mm (0.40 to 0.47 in) long, with conspicuous purple veins. The fruit is a silique (a lengthened pod), 34 to 65 mm (1.34 to 2.56 in) long and 1 to 2 m (0.04 to 0.08 in) wide (Welsh, et al., 2003). Distribution: There are two known populations of Barneby reed- mustard. One population is within the boundary of Capitol Reef National Park in the Fremont River drainage west of Fruita, Utah in Wayne County, and the other population is in the southern portion of the San Rafael Swell in Emery County, Utah.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    BARNEBY REED-MUSTARD (S. barnebyi ) CLAY REED-MUSTARD SHRUBBY REED-MUSTARD (S,arguillacea) (S. suffrutescens) .-~ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UTAH REED—MUSTARDS: CLAY REED-MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE ARGILLACEA) BARNEBY REED—MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE BARNEBYI) SI-IRUBBY REED-MUSTARD (SCHOENOCRAMBE SUFFRUTESCENS) RECOVERY PLAN Prepared by Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Approved: Date: (~19~- Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect the species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will only be attained and funds expended contingent upon appropriations, priorities, and other budgetary constraints. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views or the official positions or approvals of any individuals or agencies, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, involved in the plan formulation. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as an~roved Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. Literature Citation should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Utah reed—mustards: clay reed—mustard (Schoenocrambe argillacea), Barneby reed-mustard (Schoenocrambe barnebyl), shrubby reed—mustard (Schoenacranibe suffrutescens) recovery plan. Denver, Colorado. 22 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Telephone: 301/492—6403 or 1—800—582—3421 The fee for the plan varies depending on the number of pages of the plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Biological Assessment for the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement
    Revised Biological Assessment for the Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement July 14, 2015 FS_0081605 Revised Biological Assessment for Utah Greater Sage-Grouse Land Use Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Background ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Purpose and Need for GRSG LUP Amendment ........................................................................................... 6 Description of Planning Area ........................................................................................................................ 6 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................................... 10 SPECIES CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................. 10 SPECIES INFORMATION AND CRITICAL HABITAT ............................................................................. 42 A. Wildlife and Fish .................................................................................................................................... 42 Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis)—Threatened ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Plant Species of Utah
    TECHNICAL NOTE USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service Boise, Idaho and Salt Lake City, Utah TN PLANT MATERIALS NO. 52 January 2013 Revision THREATENED, ENDANGERED & CANDIDATE PLANT SPECIES OF UTAH Derek Tilley, Agronomist, NRCS, Aberdeen, Idaho Loren St. John, PMC Team Leader, NRCS, Aberdeen, Idaho Dan Ogle, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Boise, Idaho (ret.) Casey Burns, State Biologist, NRCS, Salt Lake City, Utah Richard Fleenor, Plant Materials Specialist, NRCS, Spokane, Washington Last Chance Townsendia (Townsendia aprica). Photo by Megan Robinson. This technical note identifies the current threatened, endangered, candidate and proposed plant species listed by the U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI FWS) in Utah. 2 Table of Contents Introduction 4 Map of Utah Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Plant Species 6 Threatened & Endangered Species Profiles 7 Arctomecon humilis Dwarf Bear-poppy ARHU3 8 Asclepias welshii Welsh’s Milkweed ASWE3 10 Astragalus ampullarioides Shivwits Milkvetch ASAM14 12 Astragalus desereticus Deseret Milkvetch ASDE2 14 Astragalus holmgreniorum Holmgren Milkvetch ASHO5 16 Astragalus limnocharis var. montii Heliotrope Milkvetch ASLIM 18 Carex specuicola Navajo Sedge CASP9 20 Cycladenia humilis var. jonesii Jones’ Waxy Dogbane CYHUJ 22 Glacocarpum suffrutescens Shrubby Reed-Mustard GLSU 24 Lepidium barnebyanum Barneby Ridge-cress LEBA 26 Lesquerella tumulosa or L. rubicundula Kodachrome Bladderpod LERU4 28 Pediocactus despainii San Rafael Cactus PEDE17 30 Pediocactus winkleri Winkler Cactus PEWI2
    [Show full text]
  • Schoenocrambe Suffrutescens (Shrubby Reed-Mustard)
    Schoenocrambe suffrutescens (Shrubby Reed-mustard) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo courtesy of Bekee Hotze, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Field Office – Ecological Services West Valley City, Utah 84119 November 2010 5-YEAR REVIEW Schoenocrambe suffrutescens (Shrubby reed-mustard) 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Purpose of 5-Year Reviews The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required by Section 4(c)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (hereafter referred to as the “ESA”) to conduct a status review of each listed species at least once every 5 years. The purpose of a 5-year review is to evaluate whether or not the species’ status has changed since it was listed (or since the most recent 5-year review). Based on the 5-year review, we recommend whether the species should be removed from the list of endangered and threatened species, be changed in status from endangered to threatened, or be changed in status from threatened to endangered. Our original listing as endangered or threatened is based on the species’ status considering the five threat factors described in Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. These same five factors are considered in any subsequent reclassification or delisting decisions. In the 5-year review, we consider the best available scientific and commercial data on the species, and focus on new information available since the species was listed or last reviewed. If we recommend a change in listing status based on the results of the 5-year review, we must propose to do so through a separate rule-making process including public review and comment.
    [Show full text]