Appendix F.7

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Appendix F.7 APPENDIX F.7 Biological Evaluation Appendix F.7 Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project Biological Evaluation March 2019 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. Reviewed and Approved by: USDA Forest Service BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION This page intentionally left blank BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES .................................................... 1 PRE-FIELD REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 4 RESULTS OF FIELD SURVEYS ...................................................................................... 4 SPECIES IMPACT DETERMINATION SUMMARY .......................................................... 5 DETAILED EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ON SPECIES CONSIDERED ............ 25 6.1 Global Discussion ........................................................................................................ 25 6.1.1 Analysis Areas and Current Environment ............................................................. 25 6.1.2 Impacts .................................................................................................................. 33 6.1.3 Conservation Measures and Mitigation ................................................................. 62 6.2 Species Accounts and Analysis of Impacts ................................................................. 63 6.2.1 Mammals ............................................................................................................... 65 6.2.2 Birds ...................................................................................................................... 81 6.2.3 Amphibians .......................................................................................................... 124 6.2.4 Reptiles ............................................................................................................... 129 6.2.5 Fish ...................................................................................................................... 134 6.2.6 Terrestrial Invertebrates ...................................................................................... 137 6.2.7 Aquatic Invertebrates .......................................................................................... 169 6.2.8 Plants and Fungi ................................................................................................. 181 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 197 March 2019 i Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION List of Tables Table 1. Forest Service Sensitive Species with Potential to Occur near the Project .................... 6 Table 2. Available Habitat within 700 feet of the Proposed Action ............................................. 25 Table 3. Available Habitat within 3,200 feet of the Proposed Action .......................................... 28 Table 4. Available Habitat within 5 miles of the Proposed Action ............................................... 31 Table 5. Construction Spread Locations ..................................................................................... 34 Table 6. Seasonal Timing Restrictions Associated with Bird Species for Timber Felling, Logging, Clearing, and Construction Activities .............................................................................. 36 Table 7. Effects to Acres of Johnson and O’Neil Habitat Type by National Forest ..................... 39 Table 8. Total Terrestrial Habitat Affected/Removed1/ by Construction within Riparian Reserves in Fifth Field Watersheds ................................................................................................ 42 Table 9. Total Terrestrial Habitat Affected in the 30-foot-wide Maintained Corridor within Riparian Reserves in Fifth Field Watersheds .................................................................. 43 Table 10. Snag Density Estimates on NFS lands ....................................................................... 44 Table 11. Helicopter Staging Locations ...................................................................................... 47 Table 12. Estimated Equipment Noise and Noise Attenuation at Specified Distances During a Typical Pipeline Construction Sequence ......................................................................... 49 Table 13. Forest Service Project-related Mitigation and Recent, Current, or Proposed Actions that May Cumulatively Affect Resources Evaluated in this BE on Forest Service- Managed Lands .............................................................................................................. 55 Table 14: Cumulative Acres Impacted by Watershed by the Project, Related Mitigation Projects, and Other Projects 1/, 2/, 3/ ................................................................................................. 59 Table 15. Pallid Bat Habitat Associations ................................................................................... 66 Table 16. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Habitat Associations ........................................................ 70 Table 17. Fringed Myotis Habitat Associations ........................................................................... 74 Table 18. Pacific Fisher Habitat Associations ............................................................................. 79 Table 19. Red-necked Grebe Habitat Associations .................................................................... 83 Table 20. Horned Grebe Habitat Associations ............................................................................ 86 Table 21. American White Pelican Habitat Associations ............................................................ 89 Table 22. Harlequin Duck Habitat Associations .......................................................................... 92 Table 23. Bufflehead Habitat Associations ................................................................................. 95 Table 24. Upland Sandpiper Habitat Associations ...................................................................... 99 Table 25. White-tailed Kite Habitat Associations ...................................................................... 102 Table 26. Bald Eagle Habitat Associations ............................................................................... 105 Table 27. American Peregrine Falcon Habitat Associations ..................................................... 108 Table 28. White-headed Woodpecker Habitat Associations ..................................................... 112 Table 29. Lewis’ Woodpecker Habitat Associations ................................................................. 115 Table 30. Purple Martin Habitat Associations ........................................................................... 119 Table 31. Tricolored Blackbird Habitat Associations ................................................................. 122 Table 32. Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Habitat Associations .................................................... 125 Table 33. Western Pond Turtle Habitat Associations ............................................................... 130 Table 34. Umpqua Chub Potential Habitat ............................................................................... 135 March 2019 ii Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline Project BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION Table 35. Traveling Sideband Habitat Associations ................................................................. 139 Table 36. Siskiyou Hesperian Habitat Associations .................................................................. 143 Table 37. Western Bumblebee Habitat Associations ................................................................ 147 Table 38. Siskiyou Short-horned Grasshopper Habitat Associations ....................................... 152 Table 39. Gray-blue Butterfly Habitat Associations .................................................................. 156 Table 40. Johnson’s Hairstreak Habitat Associations ............................................................... 159 Table 41. Mardon Skipper Habitat Associations ....................................................................... 163 Table 42. Coronis Fritillary Habitat Associations ...................................................................... 166 Table 43. Umpqua Mariposa Lily Habitat Associations ............................................................. 183 Table 44. Pine Woods Cryptantha Habitat Associations .......................................................... 187 Table 45. California Globe Mallow Habitat Associations .......................................................... 190 Table 46. Bellinger’s Meadowfoam Habitat Associations ......................................................... 194 List of Figures Figure 1. General Location of the Proposed Project ..................................................................... 2 Figure 2. Pipeline Construction Schedule ................................................................................... 35 Figure 3. Generalized Pipeline Construction Sequence ............................................................. 53 List of Appendices Appendix A: Sensitive Species that Are Not Expected to be Impacted by the Project Appendix B: Summary of Construction and Operation-Related Disturbance to Each National Forest Appendix C: Waterbodies
Recommended publications
  • Calochortus Flexuosus S. Watson (Winding Mariposa Lily): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Calochortus flexuosus S. Watson (winding mariposa lily): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project July 24, 2006 Susan Spackman Panjabi and David G. Anderson Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO Peer Review Administered by Center for Plant Conservation Panjabi, S.S. and D.G. Anderson. (2006, July 24). Calochortus flexuosus S. Watson (winding mariposa lily): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/calochortusflexuosus.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research was facilitated by the helpfulness and generosity of many experts, particularly Leslie Stewart, Peggy Fiedler, Marilyn Colyer, Peggy Lyon, Lynn Moore, and William Jennings. Their interest in the project and time spent answering questions were extremely valuable, and their insights into the distribution, habitat, and ecology of Calochortus flexuosus were crucial to this project. Thanks also to Greg Hayward, Gary Patton, Jim Maxwell, Andy Kratz, and Joy Bartlett for assisting with questions and project management. Thanks to Kimberly Nguyen for her work on the layout and for bringing this assessment to Web publication. Jane Nusbaum and Barbara Brayfield provided crucial financial oversight. Peggy Lyon and Marilyn Colyer provided valuable insights based on their experiences with C. flexuosus. Leslie Stewart provided information specific to the San Juan Resource Area of the Bureau of Land Management, including the Canyons of the Ancients National Monument. Annette Miller provided information on C. flexuosusseed storage status. Drs. Ron Hartman and Ernie Nelson provided access to specimens of C.
    [Show full text]
  • Likely to Have Habitat Within Iras That ALLOW Road
    Item 3a - Sensitive Species National Master List By Region and Species Group Not likely to have habitat within IRAs Not likely to have Federal Likely to have habitat that DO NOT ALLOW habitat within IRAs Candidate within IRAs that DO Likely to have habitat road (re)construction that ALLOW road Forest Service Species Under NOT ALLOW road within IRAs that ALLOW but could be (re)construction but Species Scientific Name Common Name Species Group Region ESA (re)construction? road (re)construction? affected? could be affected? Bufo boreas boreas Boreal Western Toad Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Plethodon vandykei idahoensis Coeur D'Alene Salamander Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Rana pipiens Northern Leopard Frog Amphibian 1 No Yes Yes No No Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Ammodramus bairdii Baird's Sparrow Bird 1 No No Yes No No Anthus spragueii Sprague's Pipit Bird 1 No No Yes No No Centrocercus urophasianus Sage Grouse Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter Swan Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Falco peregrinus anatum American Peregrine Falcon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Gavia immer Common Loon Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Histrionicus histrionicus Harlequin Duck Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Oreortyx pictus Mountain Quail Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Otus flammeolus Flammulated Owl Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides albolarvatus White-Headed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Picoides arcticus Black-Backed Woodpecker Bird 1 No Yes Yes No No Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing
    [Show full text]
  • Pre and Post-Fire Monitoring of Kalmiopsis Fragrans on the Umpqua National Forest 2012 Progress Report
    Pre and post-fire monitoring of Kalmiopsis fragrans on the Umpqua National Forest 2012 progress report Prepared by Kelly Amsberry, Amy Golub-Tse, and Robert Meinke for U.S. Forest Service, Umpqua National Forest (No. 04-CS-11061500-027) March 18, 2013 Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1 Species description ............................................................................................................................. 2 Habitat ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Threats ................................................................................................................................................ 2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Project 1: Wildfire study ......................................................................................................................... 4 Project 2: Prescribed fire study ............................................................................................................. 5 2014 Tasks .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bulletin of the Native Plant Society of Oregon Dedicated to the Enjoyment, Conservation and Study of Oregon’S Native Plants and Habitats
    Bulletin of the Native Plant Society of Oregon Dedicated to the enjoyment, conservation and study of Oregon’s native plants and habitats VOLUME 50, NO. 7 AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2017 2017 Annual Meeting Recap: Land of Umpqua For an in-depth recap and photos of one Roseburg locales, and Wolf Creek. On Susan Carter (botanist with the Rose- of this year’s annual meeting field trips, Saturday, nine trips included hikes to burg BLM office), Marty Stein (USFS visit Tanya Harvey’s “Plants and Places” Beatty Creek, Bilger Ridge, Fall Creek botanist), and Rod Trotter. blog, westerncascades.com/2017/06/21/ Falls, Hemlock Lake, King Mountain, Field trip participants were treated weather-woes-at-hemlock-lake Limpy Rock, Lookout Mountain, Tah- to views of the regionally unique en- NPSO members traveled to the kenitch Dunes, and Twin Lakes. Partici- demic species, including Calochortus Land of Umpqua June 9–11 for the pants at higher locations were treated coxii (crinite mariposa lily, named for 2017 Annual Meeting, jointly hosted by to a little snow (just enough to enhance Marvin Cox), Calochortus umpquaensis the Umpqua Valley and Corvallis Chap- the fun) but those at lower sites found (Umpqua mariposa lily), and Kalmiopsis ters. This location, situated at a “botani- primarily pleasant (if a bit drizzly) fragrans (fragrant kalmiopsis) along with cal crossroads” between the California weather. Sunday’s adventures trekked the threatened Lupinus oreganus (Kin- Floristic Province and the Vancouverian to the North Bank Preserve, Roseburg caid’s lupine). Noting some highlights Floristic Province, combined with par- locales, Wolf Creek, Beatty Creek, and from one trip, Gail Baker reports from ticular geological formations, allowed Bilger Ridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Botany Biological Evaluation
    APPENDIX I Botany Biological Evaluation Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Fungi Page 1 of 35 for the Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Restoration Project November 2009 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE – FOREST SERVICE LAKE TAHOE BASIN MANAGEMENT UNIT Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Restoration Project El Dorado County, CA Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Fungi PREPARED BY: ENTRIX, Inc. DATE: November 2009 APPROVED BY: DATE: _____________ Name, Forest Botanist, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit SUMMARY OF EFFECTS DETERMINATION AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS AND/OR REQUIREMENTS One population of a special-status bryophyte, three-ranked hump-moss (Meesia triquetra), was observed in the survey area during surveys on June 30, 2008 and August 28, 2008. The proposed action will not affect the moss because the population is located outside the project area where no action is planned. The following species of invasive or noxious weeds were identified during surveys of the Project area: cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum); bullthistle (Cirsium vulgare); Klamathweed (Hypericum perforatum); oxe-eye daisy (Leucanthemum vulgare); and common mullein (Verbascum Thapsus). The threat posed by these weed populations would not increase if the proposed action is implemented. An inventory and assessment of invasive and noxious weeds in the survey area is presented in the Noxious Weed Risk Assessment for the Upper Truckee River Sunset Stables Restoration Project (ENTRIX 2009). Based on the description of the proposed action and the evaluation contained herein, we have determined the following: There would be no significant effect to plant species listed as threatened, endangered, proposed for listing, or candidates under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), administered by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Bryophyte Surveys 2009
    Interagency Special Status Species Program Survey of Large Meadow Complexes for Sensitive Bryophyte and Fungal Species in the Northern Willamette National Forest Chris Wagner Willamette National Forest Detroit Ranger District District Botanist October 2011 1 Table of contents Introduction / Project Description……………………………………………………………..3 Sites Surveyed and Survey Results……………………………………………………………..4 Meadows, Information, Results…………………………………………………………………..9 Potential Future Survey Work………………………………………………………………………………14 References……………………………………………………………………………………….….…...15 ATTACHMENT 1: Regional Forester’s Special Status Species List for the Willamette National Forest (Revised 2008)……....................…………..16 2 Introduction Surveys were completed in 2010 and 2011 for large meadow complexes in the northern districts of the Willamette National Forest to determine whether any sensitive species of bryophytes or fungi are present. The type of habitat was also determined to clarify whether the habitat is a wet or dry meadow, bog or fen. Bryophyte identification was begun in 2010 with the first specimens collected and continued on through 2011 when most priority bryophytes were identified. The meadows selected represent the highest probability habitat for wetland bryophytes and fungi on Detroit and Sweet Home Ranger Districts. Some of these meadows may have been surveyed for vascular plant species in the past, but there are many new non-vascular sensitive species on the Willamette NF 2008 sensitive species list (see attachment 1) and additional species being being added to the proposed 2012 Regional Forester’s sensitive species list (unpublished). Meadows surveyed on the Detroit Ranger District included: Tule Lake meadow complex, Twin Meadows, Marion Lake meadow complex, Jo Jo Lake site, Wild Cheat Meadows, Bruno Meadows, Pigeon Prairie Meadow complex and Big Meadows. On the Sweet Home Ranger District Gordon Lake Meadows Complex was surveyed.
    [Show full text]
  • Distribution Patterns of Calochortus Greenii on the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument
    Habitat and Landscape Distribution of Calochortus greenei S. Watson (Liliaceae) Across the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument, Southwest Oregon Evan Frost and Paul Hosten1 ABSTRACT The Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument includes a wide range of slope, elevation, soil types, and historic management activities. Calochortus greenei occupies a wide range of habitats primarily defined by topographic and edaphic factors. Several environmental factors are confounded with patterns of livestock use, making it difficult to separate the influence of individual factors. The inclusion of many environmental variables in multivariate models with little predictive power suggests that few generalizations about C. greenei abundance relative to environmental factors are valid across the larger landscape. Distance from vegetation edge was an important biotic variable incorporated in models of C. greenei population density across the landscape, suggesting that ecotones between soil types may play a role in defining suitable habitat. The varied localized influence of edaphic factors may indicate their indirect importance to C. greenei habitat by controlling the expression of mixed shrub and hardwood vegetation. Habitat analyses and examination of population size and change over time are similarly confounded by environmental and management factors. However, an examination within three areas of C. greenei aggregation with distinct soils and elevation indicate that the relative proportion of native perennial and non-native short-lived grasses are correlated with population size. These results suggest that invasive annual and short- lived perennial grasses may prevent the successful establishment and persistence of C. greenei seedlings, resulting in the long-term decline of populations in habitats and circumstances prone to invasion by ruderal species, including high livestock use areas.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Priority Plant and Animal Species in Oregon Forests
    A GUIDE TO Priority Plant and Animal Species IN OREGON FORESTS A publication of the Oregon Forest Resources Institute Sponsors of the first animal and plant guidebooks included the Oregon Department of Forestry, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, Oregon State University and the Oregon State Implementation Committee, Sustainable Forestry Initiative. This update was made possible with help from the Northwest Habitat Institute, the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, Institute for Natural Resources, Portland State University and Oregon State University. Acknowledgments: The Oregon Forest Resources Institute is grateful to the following contributors: Thomas O’Neil, Kathleen O’Neil, Malcolm Anderson and Jamie McFadden, Northwest Habitat Institute; the Integrated Habitat and Biodiversity Information System (IBIS), supported in part by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council and the Bonneville Power Administration under project #2003-072-00 and ESRI Conservation Program grants; Sue Vrilakas, Oregon Biodiversity Information Center, Institute for Natural Resources; and Dana Sanchez, Oregon State University, Mark Gourley, Starker Forests and Mike Rochelle, Weyerhaeuser Company. Edited by: Fran Cafferata Coe, Cafferata Consulting, LLC. Designed by: Sarah Craig, Word Jones © Copyright 2012 A Guide to Priority Plant and Animal Species in Oregon Forests Oregonians care about forest-dwelling wildlife and plants. This revised and updated publication is designed to assist forest landowners, land managers, students and educators in understanding how forests provide habitat for different wildlife and plant species. Keeping forestland in forestry is a great way to mitigate habitat loss resulting from development, mining and other non-forest uses. Through the use of specific forestry techniques, landowners can maintain, enhance and even create habitat for birds, mammals and amphibians while still managing lands for timber production.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Plant Propagation Protocol
    Plant Propagation Protocol for Calochortus umpquaensis ESRM 412 – Native Plant Production Protocol URL: https://courses.washington.edu/esrm412/protocols/CAUM5 Photo: Oregon Department of Agriculture TAXONOMY Plant Family Scientific Name Liliaceae Common Name Forb/herb Species Scientific Name Scientific Name Calochortus umpquaensis Fredricks Varieties Sub-species C. umpquaensis Fredricks ssp. confertus Callahan C. umpquaensis Fredericks ssp. flavicomus Callahan Cultivar Common Synonym(s) Common Name(s) Umpqua mariposa lily Species Code (as per CAUM5 USDA Plants database) GENERAL INFORMATION Geographical range Photos from USDA Plants Database Ecological distribution Native to Oregon, Umpqua mariposa lily grows in serpentine-derived soils. Prefers an open, grassy hillside or the Jeffery pine woodlands in Oregon. (8) (3) Climate and elevation 300-500 m elevation range located in southwestern Oregon. Found along range the Umpqua river, they grow in open forest areas on north facing banks that can be steep or rocky. (5)(3) Local habitat and Restricted to the Umpqua river drainage, the lily has been found at about abundance 15 sites. These sites can support thousands of Umpqua mariposa lilies. Associated species include Festuca idahoensis, Calocedrus decurrens, Danthonia californica, and Pinus jefferyi. (3)(8) Plant strategy type / Preferring forest edges, the lily can withstand the high heavy metal successional stage concentration of serpentine soils that typically lack essential nutrients for growth. The plant grows in well drained soils and is able to tolerate moisture during dormancy.(3)(6)(8) Plant characteristics Umpqua mariposa lily is best identified when the plant is flowering. Blooming from May – June, the plant produces white flowers with blackish purple tones.
    [Show full text]
  • Rationales for Animal Species Considered for Species of Conservation Concern, Sequoia National Forest
    Rationales for Animal Species Considered for Species of Conservation Concern Sequoia National Forest Prepared by: Wildlife Biologists and Biologist Planner Regional Office, Sequoia National Forest and Washington Office Enterprise Program For: Sequoia National Forest June 2019 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plants Endemic to the Klamath-Siskiyou Region
    Humboldt State University Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University Botanical Studies Open Educational Resources and Data 2020 Vascular Plants Endemic to the Klamath-Siskiyou Region James P. Smith Jr Humboldt State University, james.smith@humboldt.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps Part of the Botany Commons Recommended Citation Smith, James P. Jr, "Vascular Plants Endemic to the Klamath-Siskiyou Region" (2020). Botanical Studies. 66. https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/botany_jps/66 This Flora of the Klamath-Siskiyou Region of California and Oregon is brought to you for free and open access by the Open Educational Resources and Data at Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Botanical Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Humboldt State University. For more information, please contact kyle.morgan@humboldt.edu. A LIST OF THE VASCULAR PLANTS ENDEMIC TO THE KLAMATH-SISKIYOU REGION OF CALIFORNIA AND OREGON James P. Smith, Jr. & John O. Sawyer, Jr. † Department of Biological Sciences Humboldt State University February 2020 In California, the Klamath-Siskiyou Region includes all or portions of Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Humboldt, Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama, and Trinity counties. In Oregon, it includes all or portions of Curry, Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine counties. The region is the home of 215 endemics. No family of vascular plants is endemic here. Kalmiopsis is endemic to Oregon, Howellanthus to California, and Bensoniella to both states. There are 103 taxa restricted to northwestern California; 38 taxa to southwestern Oregon; and 74 taxa endemic to the region in both states. We have excluded taxa that are based on suspect far-out- of-range collections, presumed extinct, or that were otherwise anomalous.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Programmatic EIS for Fuels Reduction and Rangeland
    NATIONAL SYSTEM OF PUBLIC LANDS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. Department of the Interior March 2020 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Draft Programmatic EIS for Fuels Reduction and Rangeland Restoration in the Great Basin Volume 3: Appendices B through N Estimated Lead Agency Total Costs Associated with Developing and Producing this EIS $2,000,000 The Bureau of Land Management’s multiple-use mission is to sustain the health and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Bureau accomplishes this by managing such activities as outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, mineral development, and energy production, and by conserving natural, historical, cultural, and other resources on public lands. Appendix B. Acronyms, Literature Cited, Glossary B.1 ACRONYMS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full Phrase ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AML appropriate management level ARMPA Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment BCR bird conservation region BLM Bureau of Land Management BSU biologically significant unit CEQ Council on Environmental Quality EIS environmental impact statement EPA US Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ESR emergency stabilization and rehabilitation FIAT Fire and Invasives Assessment Tool FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act FY fiscal year GHMA general habitat management area HMA herd management area IBA important bird area IHMA important habitat management area MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MOU memorandum of understanding MtCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NIFC National Interagency Fire Center NRCS National Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWCG National Wildfire Coordination Group OHMA other habitat management area OHV off-highway vehicle Programmatic EIS for Fuels Reduction and Rangeland Restoration in the Great Basin B-1 B.
    [Show full text]