DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment for the CPS Energy Shepherd Substation Transmission Line, Bexar County, Texas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment for the CPS Energy Shepherd Substation Transmission Line, Bexar County, Texas Environmental Assessment for the CPS Energy Shepherd Substation Transmission Line, Bexar County, Texas SWCA Project Number 37946 Revised October 2017 SUBMITTED TO: CPS Energy 145 Navarro San Antonio, Texas 78205 SUBMITTED BY: SWCA Environmental Consultants 6200 UTSA Boulevard, Suite 102 San Antonio, Texas 78249 This page intentionally left blank. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE CPS ENERGY SHEPHERD SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE, BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS Prepared for CPS ENERGY 145 Navarro San Antonio, Texas 78205 Prepared by SWCA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 6200 UTSA Boulevard Suite 102 San Antonio, Texas 78249 www.swca.com SWCA Project Number 37946 October 2, 2017 This page intentionally left blank. Environmental Assessment for the CPS Energy Shepherd Substation Transmission Line, Bexar County, Texas CONTENTS 1.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................................... 1 1.1 Scope of the Project ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose and Need.............................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Description of Proposed Design ....................................................................................................... 1 1.3.1 Substation Design ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.3.2 Transmission Line Easement ....................................................................................................... 3 1.3.3 Structures ..................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3.4 Construction Process and Schedule ............................................................................................. 4 1.3.5 Operation and Maintenance ......................................................................................................... 5 2.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SUBSTATION LOCATIONS AND TRANSMISSION LINE ROUTES ........................................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Objective of Study ............................................................................................................................. 6 2.1.1 Study Area Delineation ................................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Identification of Alternative Sites .................................................................................................... 6 2.2.1 Constraints Mapping .................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.2 Identification of Potential Substation Sites and Transmission Routes ......................................... 7 2.2.3 Identification of Primary Substation Sites and Transmission Routes .......................................... 7 2.3 Alternatives Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 11 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ....................................................................................................... 12 3.1 Physiography ................................................................................................................................... 12 3.2 Geology ............................................................................................................................................. 12 3.3 Soils ................................................................................................................................................... 13 3.3.1 Soil Associations ........................................................................................................................ 13 3.3.2 Prime Farmland Soils ................................................................................................................. 18 3.4 Water Resources ............................................................................................................................. 19 3.4.1 Surface Water ............................................................................................................................ 19 3.4.2 Floodplains ................................................................................................................................. 19 3.4.3 Groundwater .............................................................................................................................. 20 3.5 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................ 20 3.6 Fish and Wildlife ............................................................................................................................. 20 3.7 Federally and State-Threatened and Endangered Species .......................................................... 21 3.7.1 Golden Orb ................................................................................................................................ 27 3.7.2 Texas Fatmucket ........................................................................................................................ 27 3.7.3 Texas Pimpleback ...................................................................................................................... 28 3.7.4 Texas Indigo Snake .................................................................................................................... 28 3.7.5 Critical Habitat ........................................................................................................................... 28 3.8 Socioeconomics ................................................................................................................................ 28 3.8.1 Population and Economic Trends .............................................................................................. 28 3.8.2 Environmental Justice ................................................................................................................ 29 3.9 Human Development ...................................................................................................................... 29 SWCA Environmental Consultants SWCA Project No. 37946 i Environmental Assessment for the CPS Energy Shepherd Substation Transmission Line, Bexar County, Texas 3.9.1 Transportation /Aviation / Communications Facilities .............................................................. 29 3.9.2 Land Use .................................................................................................................................... 30 3.9.3 Parks and Recreation.................................................................................................................. 31 3.10 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................................... 31 3.11 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................................ 31 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROJECT ..................................................................... 32 4.1 IMPACT ON NATURAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................... 32 4.1.1 Impact on Geological Resources ............................................................................................... 32 4.1.2 Impact on Soils .......................................................................................................................... 32 4.1.3 Impact on Water Resources ....................................................................................................... 34 4.1.3.1 Surface Water ...................................................................................................................... 34 4.1.3.2 Floodplain ........................................................................................................................... 34 4.1.3.3 Groundwater ....................................................................................................................... 35 4.1.4 Impact on Ecosystems................................................................................................................ 35 4.1.4.1 Vegetation ........................................................................................................................... 35 4.1.4.2 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................... 35 4.1.4.3 Endangered and Threatened Species ................................................................................... 37 4.2 IMPACT ON HUMAN RESOURCES.......................................................................................... 37 4.2.1 Socioeconomic Impact ............................................................................................................... 37 4.2.2 Impact on Land Use ................................................................................................................... 38 4.2.3 Impact on Recreation ................................................................................................................. 38 4.2.4
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TCAP Coordinator, TPWD
    TEXAS CONSERVATION ACTION PLAN East Central Texas Plains (Post Oak Savanna) DRAFT ECOREGION HANDBOOK JUNE 2011 Note: text in red in this document will be revised between June 10 Public Comment Draft and the final USFWS-approved document. THIS IS A SUMMARY of the HANDBOOK; more background information will be added. In accordance with Texas State Depository Law, this publication is available at the Texas State Publications Clearinghouse and/or Texas Depository Libraries. © Texas Parks and Wildlife Department PWD insert number when approved Citing this document: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 2011. Texas Conservation Action Plan 2011 – 2016: East Central Texas Plains Handbook. Editor, Wendy Connally, Texas Conservation Action Plan Coordinator. PWD insert number when approved. Austin, Texas. Contents SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 HOW TO GET INVOLVED ............................................................................................................................... 2 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 RARE SPECIES and COMMUNITIES .............................................................................................................. 12 PRIORITY HABITATS ....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Management Recommendations for Native Insect Pollinators in Texas
    Management Recommendations for Native Insect Pollinators in Texas Texas Parks and Wildlife Department • 4200 Smith School Road • Austin, Texas 78744 • (512) 389-4800 Management Recommendations for Native Insect Pollinators in Texas Developed by Michael Warriner and Ben Hutchins Nongame and Rare Species Program Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Acknowledgements Critical content review was provided by Mace Vaughn, Anne Stine, and Jennifer Hopwood, The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation and Shalene Jha Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin. Texas Master Naturalists, Carol Clark and Jessica Womack, provided the early impetus for development of management protocols geared towards native pollinators. Cover photos: Left top to bottom: Ben Hutchins, Cullen Hanks, Eric Isley, Right: Eric Isley Design and layout by Elishea Smith © 2016 Texas Parks and Wildlife Department PWD BK W7000-1813 (04/16) In accordance with Texas State Depository Law, this publication is available at the Texas State Publications Clearinghouse and/or Texas Depository Libraries. TPWD receives federal assistance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other federal agencies and is subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and state anti-discrimination laws which prohibit discrimination the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex or disability. If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any TPWD program, activity or facility, or need more information, please contact Office of Diversity and Inclusive Workforce Management, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List
    Section IV – Guideline for the Texas Priority Species List Associated Tables The Texas Priority Species List……………..733 Introduction For many years the management and conservation of wildlife species has focused on the individual animal or population of interest. Many times, directing research and conservation plans toward individual species also benefits incidental species; sometimes entire ecosystems. Unfortunately, there are times when highly focused research and conservation of particular species can also harm peripheral species and their habitats. Management that is focused on entire habitats or communities would decrease the possibility of harming those incidental species or their habitats. A holistic management approach would potentially allow species within a community to take care of themselves (Savory 1988); however, the study of particular species of concern is still necessary due to the smaller scale at which individuals are studied. Until we understand all of the parts that make up the whole can we then focus more on the habitat management approach to conservation. Species Conservation In terms of species diversity, Texas is considered the second most diverse state in the Union. Texas has the highest number of bird and reptile taxon and is second in number of plants and mammals in the United States (NatureServe 2002). There have been over 600 species of bird that have been identified within the borders of Texas and 184 known species of mammal, including marine species that inhabit Texas’ coastal waters (Schmidly 2004). It is estimated that approximately 29,000 species of insect in Texas take up residence in every conceivable habitat, including rocky outcroppings, pitcher plant bogs, and on individual species of plants (Riley in publication).
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 23 Number 1 March 2020
    FRESHWATER MOLLUSK BIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION THE JOURNAL OF THE FRESHWATER MOLLUSK CONSERVATION SOCIETY VOLUME 23 NUMBER 1 MARCH 2020 Pages 1-17 Pages 25-35 Expanding the known ranges of the Provenance and disposition of specimens phreatic snails (Mollusca, Gastropoda, appearing in color plates of the Freshwater Cochliopidae) of Texas, USA Mussels of Tennessee Dominique Alvear, Peter H. Diaz, J. Gerald R. Dinkins Randy Gibson, Benjamin T. Hutchins, Benjamin Schwartz, and Kathryn E. Pages 36-41 Perez Freshwater mussel assemblage structure in a small Edwards Plateau impoundment Pages 18-24 with comments on conservation Mesohabitat associations of the Devil implications for Texas Fatmucket, Lampsilis Tryonia, Tryonia diaboli (Gastropoda: bracteata (Gould 1855) Truncatelloidea: Cochliopidae) Kyle T. Sullivan and Bradley M. Littrell Peter H. Diaz, Dominique Alvear, and Kathryn E. Perez Pages 42-54 Transgenerational effects of copper on a freshwater gastropod, Planorbella pilsbryi Rebecca K. Osborne, Patricia L. Gillis, and Ryan S. Prosser Freshwater Mollusk Biology and Conservation 23:1–17, 2020 Ó Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society 2020 REGULAR ARTICLE EXPANDING THE KNOWN RANGES OF THE PHREATIC SNAILS (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA, COCHLIOPIDAE) OF TEXAS, USA Dominique Alvear1#, Peter H. Diaz2, J. Randy Gibson3, Benjamin T. Hutchins4, Benjamin Schwartz4,5, and Kathryn E. Perez1#* 1 Department of Biology, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, TX 78542 USA 2 Texas Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, San Marcos, TX 78666 USA 3 Aquatic Resources Center, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, San Marcos, TX 78666 USA 4 Edwards Aquifer Research and Data Center, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666 USA 5 Department of Biology, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX 78666 USA ABSTRACT The Edwards-Trinity Aquifer System of Texas, USA, one of the world’s most ecologically diverse groundwater systems, contains 14 species (across seven genera) of small, poorly studied freshwater snails.
    [Show full text]
  • Honey Bees on TPWD Lands
    WESTERN (EUROPEAN) HONEY BEES (APIS MELLIFERA) ON TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT LANDS MANAGED FOR NATIVE BIODIVERISTY ISSUE BRIEFING PAPER/ POSITION STATEMENT ISSUE: Recommendation Against Managed Colonies of Western (European) Honey Bees (Apis mellifera) on Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Lands Managed for Native Biodiversity APPROVED: Carter Smith, Executive Director, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. March 29, 2017. STAFF CONTACT: Benjamin T. Hutchins, TPWD Nongame and Rare Species Program, 512.389.4975, [email protected] COMMUNICATION GUIDANCE: This document provides information to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) staff on the potential impacts of the non-native western (European) honey bee (Apis mellifera) (referred to here as ‘honey bee’) on native ecosystems and guidance regarding the exclusion of managed honey bee colonies on TPWD lands established for the conservation of native plant communities and associated native wildlife. TPWD POSITION: The placement of managed honey bee colonies on TPWD lands managed wholly or in part for native biodiversity is incompatible with the protection of native biodiversity and should be avoided. SUMMARY: Western (European) honey bees (Apis mellifera) have the potential to negatively impact populations of native pollinator species. They may also facilitate establishment, reproduction, and expansion of non- native invasive plant species. Consequently, establishment of managed honey bee colonies on TPWD lands is not compatible with the conservation and management of native plant communities and associated wildlife. Exclusion of managed hives would help reduce establishment of feral honey bee populations that can potentially pose a nuisance or threat to visitors and staff. Although the importance of non-native honey bees for honey production and agricultural pollination is certainly substantial, establishment of managed and resulting feral colonies on TPWD lands managed wholly or in part for native biodiversity should be avoided.
    [Show full text]
  • Mitchell Lake Threatened and Endangered Species Assessment
    Project No.: 0535-012-01 November 20, 2020 Mr. Gregg Eckhardt San Antonio Water Systems 2800 U.S. Hwy. 281 North San Antonio, Texas 78212 Re: On-site evaluation for federal and state listed species for the Mitchell Lake Wetlands Quality Treatment Initiatives Project Dear Mr. Eckhardt, This letter report provides an assessment of potential effects to federal and state-listed and candidate threatened and endangered species within the area proposed for the Mitchell Lake Wetlands Quality Treatment Initiatives Project (Project). It is being submitted to the San Antonio Water System (SAWS) in support of obtaining authorization (permit) for the Project under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). This report includes a description of the Project and the investigation area; general observations made during an on-site visual assessment; and an evaluation of potential impacts to federal and state-listed/candidate species. The report concludes that seven (7) federal or state-listed species may be present within the Project area, but that the Project would not likely adversely affect the recovery of any federally or state listed threatened, endangered, or proposed species or their critical habitat. Supplemental information related to the assessment is provided in attachments to this report. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The primary objectives of the Project are two-fold: (1) reducing the discharge of pollutants from Mitchell Lake to downstream water bodies, and (2) reducing the frequency and duration of uncontrolled discharges over the Mitchell Lake spillway. These objectives will be met through the coordinated management of stormwater storage within the lake and controlled releases of stored stormwater to a downstream constructed wetland.
    [Show full text]
  • STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LOOP 1604 from FM 471 to SH 16 I BEXAR COUNTY, CSJ: 2452-01-055
    STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LOOP 1604 FROM FARM-TO-MARKET 471 (CULEBRA ROAD) TO STATE HIGHWAY 16 (BANDERA ROAD) BEXAR COUNTY CSJ: 2452-01-055 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SAN ANTONIO DISTRICT MARCH 2013 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Table of Contents 1.0 PROPOSED ACTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Existing ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Proposed ........................................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Funding ......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Need for the Proposed Project ...................................................................................................... 2 1.5 Purpose of the Proposed Project ................................................................................................... 3 1.6 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................... 3 1.6.1 No-Build Alternative ............................................................................................................... 3 1.6.2 Build Alternative ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation Status of Freshwater Gastropods of Canada and the United States Paul D
    This article was downloaded by: [69.144.7.122] On: 24 July 2013, At: 12:35 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Fisheries Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ufsh20 Conservation Status of Freshwater Gastropods of Canada and the United States Paul D. Johnson a , Arthur E. Bogan b , Kenneth M. Brown c , Noel M. Burkhead d , James R. Cordeiro e o , Jeffrey T. Garner f , Paul D. Hartfield g , Dwayne A. W. Lepitzki h , Gerry L. Mackie i , Eva Pip j , Thomas A. Tarpley k , Jeremy S. Tiemann l , Nathan V. Whelan m & Ellen E. Strong n a Alabama Aquatic Biodiversity Center, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR) , 2200 Highway 175, Marion , AL , 36756-5769 E-mail: b North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences , Raleigh , NC c Louisiana State University , Baton Rouge , LA d United States Geological Survey, Southeast Ecological Science Center , Gainesville , FL e University of Massachusetts at Boston , Boston , Massachusetts f Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources , Florence , AL g U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service , Jackson , MS h Wildlife Systems Research , Banff , Alberta , Canada i University of Guelph, Water Systems Analysts , Guelph , Ontario , Canada j University of Winnipeg , Winnipeg , Manitoba , Canada k Alabama Aquatic Biodiversity Center, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources , Marion , AL l Illinois Natural History Survey , Champaign , IL m University of Alabama , Tuscaloosa , AL n Smithsonian Institution, Department of Invertebrate Zoology , Washington , DC o Nature-Serve , Boston , MA Published online: 14 Jun 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • SYSTEMATIC REVIEW of the MEGATHYMIDAE H. A. Freeman
    JOURNAL OF THE LEPIDOPTERI STS' SOC IETY Volume 23 Supplement I SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF THE MEGATHYMIDAE H. A. Freeman 1605 Lewis Drive, Garland, Texas I Introduction: Megathymidae 1 I NTRODUCTI ON In 1938, when this study began, the family Mega­ thymidae was perhaps the most poorly known family of Rhopa1ocera. At that time there were 14 names regarded as species (one of which was later to be treated as a synonym and another as a subspecies) and four names re­ garded as subspecies, three of which are now recognized as full species. Today we recognize 49 species and 15 sub­ species in this group of butterflies. The life histories of all species and subspecies have been worked out, with the exception of three which are known only in part. Chromosome counts have been made for many of the species by Dr. Charles Remington and his staff at Yale, and I have studied the chromosomes of additional species. Be­ sides the work that I have done with this family, con­ tributions to our knowledge of this interesting family have been made by Don B. Stallings, Viola Stallings, Dr. J. R. Turner, Ernest R. Tinkham, Charles F. Harbison, Dr. Charles Remington, and Dr. John A. Comstock. In preparing keys for the identification of species and subspecies, reference is made to the spots of the wings and to the wing shape, and these characters are illustrated on plate 1. The ~ numbers are given as 1 to 14, beginning with the cell spot (flg. 1). The wing l)ap e is determined by a ratio of three measurements: base-to-apex of forewing, or primary; 2) apex-to-outer angle (tornus) of primary; and 3) base -to-termination of CUI of hindwing, or secondary.
    [Show full text]
  • American Fisheries Society • JUNE 2013
    VOL 38 NO 6 FisheriesAmerican Fisheries Society • www.fisheries.org JUNE 2013 All Things Aquaculture Habitat Connections Hobnobbing Boondoggles? Freshwater Gastropod Status Assessment Effects of Anthropogenic Chemicals 03632415(2013)38(6) Biology and Management of Inland Striped Bass and Hybrid Striped Bass James S. Bulak, Charles C. Coutant, and James A. Rice, editors The book provides a first-ever, comprehensive overview of the biology and management of striped bass and hybrid striped bass in the inland waters of the United States. The book’s 34 chapters are divided into nine major sections: History, Habitat, Growth and Condition, Population and Harvest Evaluation, Stocking Evaluations, Natural Reproduction, Harvest Regulations, Conflicts, and Economics. A concluding chapter discusses challenges and opportunities currently facing these fisheries. This compendium will serve as a single source reference for those who manage or are interested in inland striped bass or hybrid striped bass fisheries. Fishery managers and students will benefit from this up-to-date overview of priority topics and techniques. Serious anglers will benefit from the extensive information on the biology and behavior of these popular sport fishes. 588 pages, index, hardcover List price: $79.00 AFS Member price: $55.00 Item Number: 540.80C Published May 2013 TO ORDER: Online: fisheries.org/ bookstore American Fisheries Society c/o Books International P.O. Box 605 Herndon, VA 20172 Phone: 703-661-1570 Fax: 703-996-1010 Fisheries VOL 38 NO 6 JUNE 2013 Contents COLUMNS President’s Hook 245 Scientific Meetings are Essential If our society considers student participation in our major meetings as a high priority, why are federal and state agen- cies inhibiting attendance by their fisheries professionals at these very same meetings, deeming them non-essential? A colony of the federally threatened Tulotoma attached to the John Boreman—AFS President underside of a small boulder from lower Choccolocco Creek, 262 Talladega County, Alabama.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior
    Friday J uary 6, 1989 MEN Part IV Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Animal Notice of Review • 554 Federal Register / Vol. 54, No. 4 / Friday, January 6, 1989 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Regional Director (FWE/SE), U.S. Fish least at times, to merit conSideration for and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 1306, addition to the List of Endangered and Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico 87103 (505/ Threatened Wildlife. The accompanying 766-2321 or FTS 474-2321). table identifies many of these taxa 50 CFR Part 17 Region 3. Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, (including, by definition, biological Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, subspecies and certain populations of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Wisconsin. vertebrate animals) and assigns each to and Plants; Animal Notice of Review Regional Director (AE/SE), U.S. Fish one of the three categories described AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, and Wildlife Service, Federal Building, below. Unless it is the subject of a Interior. Fort Snelling, Twin Cities, Minnesota current published proposed or final rule 55111 (612/725-3276 or FTS 725-3276). determining endangered or threatened Notice of review. ACTION: Region 4. Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, status, none of these taxa receives Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, SUMMARY: The Service issues a revised substantive or procedural protection notice identifying vertebrate and Mississippi, North Carolina, South pursuant to the Act (those species that invertebrate animal taxa, native to the Carolina, Tennessee, Puerto Rico, and are the subject of a proposed or final the Virgin Islands.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Candidate Review for Listing As Endangered Or Threatened
    58982 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 1994 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OFTHE INTERIOR ADDRESSES: Interested persons or Street, Anchorage. Alaska 99501 (907— organizations should submit comments 786—3605). Fish and Wildlife Service regarding particular taxa to the Regional FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Director of the Region specified with Jamie Rappaport Clark, Chief, Division 5OCFRPartI7 each taxon as having the lead of Endangered Species (703—358—2171) Endangered and Threatened Wildlife responsibility for that taxon. Comments or Endangered Species Coordinator(s) in and Plants; Animal Candidate Review of a more general nature maybe the appropriate Regional Office(s) listed for Listing as Endangered or submitted to: Chief—Division of above. Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Threatened Species SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Wildlife Service, Mail Stop 452 ARLSQ AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington. D.C. 20240. Written Background Interior. comments and materials received in The Endangered Species Act (16 ACTION: Notice of review. response to this notice will be available U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires the for public inspection by appointment in Secretary of the Interior (or Commerce SL.YMARY: In this notice the U.S. Fish the Regional Offices listed below. according to vested program and Wildlife Service (Service) presents Region 1.—California, Hawaii, Idaho, responsibilities) to determine whether an updated compilation of vertebrate Nevada, Oregon, Washington, wildlife and plant species are and iA~vertebrateanimal taxa native to Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana endangered or threatened, based on the the United States that are being Islands, and Pacific Territories of the best available scientific and commercial reviewed for possible addition to the United States.
    [Show full text]