DOCSLIB.ORG

Finding of No Significant Impact and Final Environment Assessment for the Black-Footed Ferret Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Finding of No Significant Impact and Final Environment Assessment for the Black-Footed Ferret Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement Finding of No Significant Impact and Final Environment Assessment for the Black-footed Ferret Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement October 23, 2013 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE MOUNTAIN-PRAIRIE REGION FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR THE PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF AN ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SECTION 10(a)(1)(A) ENHANCEMENT OF SURVIVAL PERMIT FOR THE BLACK-FOOTED FERRET PROGRAMMATIC SAFE HARBOR AGREEMENT The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to issue an Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 10(a)(1)(A) Enhancement of Survival Permit (Permit) to the Black-footed Ferret Recovery Program Coordinator for the purpose of implementing a Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) to support the recovery of the endangered black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes). The permit will have a term of 50 years, and will enable the implementation of the SHA in the states of Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, we evaluated the potential environmental effects associated with the Proposed Action of issuing the Permit and implementing the SHA, as well as two alternatives, in an Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA addressed two alternative SHA implementation scenarios and a no-action alternative. We made the draft EA and SHA available for public review at the National Black-Footed Ferret Conservation Center in Carr, Colorado, and online at www.blackfootedferret.org for 30 days on December 19, 2012. In response to requests for an extension of the public comment period, we provided the draft documents for review for an additional 30 days on January 23, 2013. We reviewed comments submitted by the public and are providing our responses to substantive comments in Appendix A of this FONSI. Appendix A also describes changes we made to the Final EA (Appendix B) in response to certain comments. All final documents associated with the SHA are available at the Black-footed Ferret Recovery Program website (http://www.blackfootedferret.org/), the Service’s Mountain-Prairie Region website (http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/blackfootedferret/), or from the Black-Footed Ferret Recovery Coordinator (currently Pete Gober; [email protected] or 970-897-2730 x224) upon request. We also initiated government-to- government consultation with potentially affected Tribes; a summary of these consultations is found in Table 1 of Section 2.0 of the EA. As a result of the analyses we conducted in the EA and review of public comments, we have made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). This FONSI documents the support for our finding as follows. We selected the proposed alternative of implementing a Programmatic Safe Harbor Agreement (Alternative B). The development of the SHA is a critical step in the eventual recovery of the black-footed ferret, as it will help facilitate reintroductions of the species on non-federal lands while providing regulatory assurances that will encourage greater private landowner participation in black-footed ferret recovery. The SHA is summarized in more detail in the attached EA. Furthermore, it allows implementation of recovery efforts on non-federal lands 2 within the historic range of the black-footed ferret to proceed more quickly than Alternative C, which would rely on the development of individual Safe Harbor Agreements on a case-by-case basis. Both Alternative B and Alternative C would conform with the Service’s Safe Harbor policy and regulations (50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32), which allow landowners to return to baseline conditions at any time without penalty. However, under Alternative C, the time necessary to develop individual SHAs and prepare the required environmental compliance documentation for each agreement would delay implementation of reintroductions and associated recovery activities on non-federal lands under these SHAs. The additional time and processes involved in developing individual SHAs are likely to be a disincentive for some landowners to volunteer enrollment of their properties which would result in a diminished benefit to the black-footed ferret relative to Alternative B. In contrast, Alternative B provides a streamlined process for landowner enrollment. Both Alternative B and Alternative C would encourage the recovery of the black-footed ferret to a greater extent than the no-action alternative (Alternative A), which would not provide mechanisms for landowners to volunteer their lands for black-footed ferret reintroductions other than through Section 10(a)(1)(A) permits or within designated Section 10(j) areas. These mechanisms do not provide the same level of streamlining or the regulatory assurances that serve as incentives under SHAs. Under Alternative B, landowners who choose to participate in the SHA would commit to continue to utilize their lands as agreed upon by them and the permit holder. In most cases, enrolled landowners are likely to continue livestock grazing, the activities that facilitate grazing (e.g., installing and maintaining fences, installing and maintaining watering facilities and controlling weeds), and other agricultural land uses compatible with black-footed ferret conservation. Furthermore, under Alternative B, the reintroduction of black-footed ferrets and associated management activities to be implemented under the SHA are not expected to change or disrupt current land uses or constitute a significant effect on other factors of the human environment within the action area. These factors and a summary of the determination of effect for each are found below: 1. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species – Federally listed species and candidates for listing potentially affected by the implementation of Alternative B include the black- footed ferret (endangered), Gunnison’s prairie dog (candidate), California condor (endangered), greater sage-grouse (candidate), Gunnison sage-grouse (proposed endangered), lesser prairie-chicken (candidate), northern aplomado falcon (endangered), and Sprague’s pipit (candidate). Alternative B is expected to have a beneficial effect on the black-footed ferret due to the implementation of reintroduction activities and plague management; prairie dog management activities are not expected to exceed the level of lethal control that presently occurs, so will likely not constitute a negative effect for the black-footed ferret. Reintroduction of the black-footed ferret is not expected to occur in the montane portion of Gunnison’s prairie dog habitat due to the paucity of colonies of adequate size (approximately 3,000 acres, depending on prairie dog density). Due to limited habitat overlap, conservation practices implemented as a result of Alternative B are not expected to constitute a negative effect on the California condor, greater sage-grouse, 3 Gunnison sage-grouse, lesser prairie-chicken, northern aplomado falcon, and Sprague’s pipit. 2. Wildlife – The implementation of Alternative B is expected to have beneficial effects for wildlife species dependent on prairie dog colonies. Many of these species are listed as species of management concern in State Wildlife Action Plans for the states contained within the action area (see Section 4.2 of the EA for additional information). While there may be some risk of short term impacts to some wildlife species, particularly from prairie dog management activities, the overall impacts are expected to be beneficial to wildlife. Additionally, the scope of Alternative B would affect only a very small percentage of the landscape (<0.1 percent, or approximately 500,000 acres of occupied prairie dog habitat); therefore, any short term impacts to wildlife would be negligible to population or species stability 3. Environmental Justice - Under Alternative B, participation in the SHA would be voluntary for any landowner who meets the eligibility requirements for habitat suitability identified in Section 3.2 of the EA. Because participation is voluntary, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of this alternative are not expected on minority populations, low-income populations, or Indian Tribes. Many Tribes have indicated a desire to participate in recovery efforts for ferrets and the implementation of Alternative B would expedite the ability for these Tribes to participate and would provide assurances that their participation would not result in additional regulatory burdens. 4. Farm and Ranch Land - Under Alternative B, landowners who choose to participate in the SHA would commit to continue to utilize their lands as agreed upon by them and the Black- footed Ferret Recovery Coordinator. In most cases, participating landowners are likely to continue livestock grazing, the activities that facilitate grazing (e.g., installing and maintaining fences, installing and maintaining watering facilities and controlling weeds), and other land uses compatible with black-footed ferret conservation. Thus, the release of ferrets and associated management activities are not expected to change or disrupt current land uses or contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farm and ranch lands to nonagricultural uses. Some landowners may be concerned with potential impacts to ranching activities from the presence of prairie dogs, such as the risk of injury to livestock and damage to equipment from prairie dog burrows and competition for livestock forage. However, Alternative B allows for prairie dog management in designated
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
    Tuesday, August 9, 2005 Part III Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Roswell springsnail, Koster’s springsnail, Noel’s amphipod, and Pecos assiminea as Endangered With Critical Habitat; Final Rule VerDate jul<14>2003 18:26 Aug 08, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM 09AUR2 46304 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: in coastal brackish waters or along tropical and temperate seacoasts Background Fish and Wildlife Service worldwide (Taylor 1987). Inland species It is our intent to discuss only those of the genus Assiminea are known from 50 CFR Part 17 topics directly relevant to this final around the world, and in North America listing determination. For more RIN 1018–AI15 they occur in California (Death Valley information on the four invertebrates, National Monument), Utah, New Endangered and Threatened Wildlife refer to the February 12, 2002, proposed Mexico, Texas (Pecos and Reeves and Plants; Listing Roswell rule (67 FR 6459). However, some of Counties), and Mexico (Bolso´n de springsnail, Koster’s springsnail, this information is discussed in our Cuatro Cı´enegas). Noel’s amphipod, and Pecos analyses below, such as the summary of The Roswell springsnail and Koster’s assiminea as Endangered With Critical factors affecting the species. springsnail are aquatic species. These Habitat Springsnails snails have lifespans of 9 to 15 months and reproduce several times during the AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, The Permian Basin of the spring through fall breeding season Interior.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of the Ichetucknee Siltsnail (Floridobia Mica) in Coffee Spring, Ichetucknee Springs State Park, Suwannee County, Florida, November 2015
    Status of the Ichetucknee Siltsnail (Floridobia mica) in Coffee Spring, Ichetucknee Springs State Park, Suwannee County, Florida, November 2015 Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfwm/article-supplement/210502/pdf/10_3996052017-jfwm-042_s12 by guest on 27 September 2021 Gary L. Warren and Jennifer Bernatis, Ph.D. Freshwater Invertebrate Resource Assessment and Research Unit Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 7386 NW 71st Street Gainesville, FL 32653 [email protected] Status of the Ichetucknee Siltsnail (Floridobia mica) in Coffee Spring, Ichetucknee Springs State Park, Suwannee County, Florida, November 2015 Introduction The Ichetucknee Siltsnail (Floridobia mica, Figure 1) is one of eleven snails of the genus Floridobia endemic to single Florida spring systems and is the lone endemic siltsnail known to occur in the Suwannee River basin. Floridobia mica has been found only in Coffee Spring, a third magnitude spring that is one of several springs located within Ichetucknee Springs State Park, Columbia and Suwannee Counties, Florida. Since F. mica inhabits only one location, its Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfwm/article-supplement/210502/pdf/10_3996052017-jfwm-042_s12 by guest on 27 September 2021 population is vulnerable to extinction from any environmental perturbation that adversely affects habitat or water quality where it resides. F. mica has a global ranking of G1 (critically imperiled) in the Nature Serve ranking system and is categorized as S1 (critically imperiled) by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory. The snail is designated as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and was one of ten Florida siltsnail species petitioned for federal listing as threatened or endangered by the Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, Arizona, in their 2010 “megapetition” submitted to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Biological Assessment for the Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program in New Mexico
    2020 Biological Assessment For the Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program in New Mexico 01/24/2020 Prepared by USDA, APHIS, PPQ 270 South 17th Street Las Cruces, NM 88005 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT (BA) FOR STATE CONSULTATION AND CONFERENCE FOR 2020 GH/MC PROGRAMS IN NEW MEXICO 2020 Biological Assessment for the Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program, New Mexico 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), in conjunction with other Federal agencies, State departments of agriculture, land management groups, and private individuals, is planning to conduct grasshopper control programs in New Mexico in 2020. This document is intended as state-wide consultation and conference with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regarding the APHIS Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program. Beginning in 1987, APHIS has consulted with the FWS on a national level for the Rangeland Grasshopper Cooperative Management Program. Biological Opinions (BO) were issued annually by FWS from 1987 through 1995 for the national program. A letter dated October 3, 1995 from FWS to APHIS concurred with buffers and other measures agreed to by APHIS for New Mexico and superseded all previous consultations. Since then, funding constraints and other considerations have drastically reduced grasshopper/Mormon cricket suppression activities. APHIS is requesting initiation of informal consultation for the implementation of the 2020 Rangeland Grasshopper and Mormon Cricket Suppression Program on rangeland in New Mexico. Our determinations of effect for listed species, proposed candidate species, critical habitat, and proposed critical habitat are based on the October 3, 1995 FWS letter, the analysis provided in the 2019 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for APHIS suppression activities in 17 western states, and local discussions with FWS.
    [Show full text]
  • THREATENED and ENDANGERED SPECIES of NEW MEXICO 2008 Biennial Review and Recommendations
    THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES OF NEW MEXICO 2008 BIENNIAL REVIEW DRAFT First Public Comment Period March 11, 2008 New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Conservation Services Division DRAFT 2008 Biennial Review of T & E Species of NM, 3/11/08 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES OF NEW MEXICO 2008 Biennial Review and Recommendations Authority: Wildlife Conservation Act (17-2-37 through 17-2-46 NMSA 1978) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A total of 118 species and subspecies are on the 2008 list of threatened and endangered New Mexico wildlife. The list includes 2 crustaceans, 25 mollusks, 23 fishes, 6 amphibians, 15 reptiles, 32 birds and 15 mammals (Tables 1, 2). An additional 7 species of mammals has been listed as restricted to facilitate control of traffic in federally protected species. A species is endangered if it is in jeopardy of extinction or extirpation from the state; a species is threatened if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range in New Mexico. Species or subspecies of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, mollusks, and crustaceans native to New Mexico may be listed as threatened or endangered under the Wildlife Conservation Act (WCA). During the Biennial Review, species may be upgraded from threatened to endangered, or downgraded from endangered to threatened, based upon data, views, and information regarding the biological and ecological status of the species. Investigations for new listings or removals from the list (delistings) can be undertaken at any time, but require additional procedures from those for the Biennial Review. The 2006 Biennial Review contained a recommendation for maintaining the status for 119 species and subspecies listed as threatened, endangered, or restricted under the WCA, and uplisting four species (Arizona grasshopper sparrow, Pecos bluntnose shiner, spikedace, and meadow jumping mouse ) from threatened to endangered and downlisting two species (shortneck snaggletooth and piping plover) from endangered to threatened.
    [Show full text]
  • 12Th Biennial Symposium
    12th Biennial Symposium April 12 – 14, 2021 Program and Abstracts 2 Table of Contents Meeting at a Glance 3 Definitions 4 Symposium Sponsors 5 2021 Virtual Symposium Local Committee 6 Acknowledgements 7 FMCS Standing Officers 7 FMCS Committees: Chairs, and Co-Chairs 8 Plenary Session 10 Networking Break Out Sessions 11 Oral and Poster Presentations Discussion Forum 12 Committee Meetings 13 Contributed Presentations (Titles and Authors) 14 Full Abstracts 42 FMCS Code of Conduct 152 Photo: Ryan Hagerty (USFWS) FMCS Virtual Symposium 2021 Back to the Future: The Virtual Unknown 3 Freshwater Mollusk Conservation Society Virtual Symposium April 12 – 14, 2021 Back to the Future: The Virtual Unknown Meeting at a Glance Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Monday (12 April 2021) Tuesday (13 April 2021) Wednesday (14 April 2021) 8:00am: Symposium Web Page Opens 9:45am – 10:45am: Breakfast at FMCS 9:45am – 10:45am: Breakfast at FMCS Recorded Oral/Poster Presentations Visible Live Networking Sessions Live Networking Sessions 11:00am - 1:00pm: Board Meeting 10:45am - 11:00am: Coffee Break 10:45am - 11:00am: Coffee Break Live Session 11:00am - 12:00pm: Oral and Poster 11:00am - 12:00pm: Oral and Poster 1:00pm - 1:15pm: Coffee Break Presentations Discussion Forum 1 Presentations Discussion Forum 1 Live Sessions Live Sessions 1:15pm – 2:30pm: Welcome and Plenary Session Live Session 12:00am - 12:15m: Coffee Break 12:00am - 12:15m: Coffee Break 2:30pm - 2:45pm: Coffee Break 12:15pm - 2:00pm: Committee Meetings 1 12:15pm - 2:00pm: Committee Meetings 2 Live Sessions Live
    [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]
  • Cibola National Forest Mountain Districts Forest Plan Revision
    At-Risk Species Determination Process and Rationale Cibola National Forest Mountain Districts Forest Plan Revision At-Risk Species Determination Process and Rationale Note: This document has been excerpted from the Assement Report of Ecological/Social/Economic Conditions, Trends, and Risks to Sustainability, Cibola National Forest Mountain Ranger Districs, Volume 1, dated 2/9/2015: (http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3829364.pdf) Additions and updates have been made following the finalization of Planning Rule Directives (FSH 1909.12 Chapters 10 and 20) and as more information becomes available about species. Please note that the SCC list does not become final until the Record of Decision for the Cibola’s revised Forest Plan is signed. Therefore, the list is only proposed until that time and may be revised and updated throughout the duration of plan revision activities. This is expected to be a living document through the duration of the Cibola Mountain Districts plan revision effort. This version is dated 7/15/2016. Identifying and assessing at-risk species in the plan area Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA, 16 U.S.C. 1604(g)(3)(B)), the Forest Service is directed to “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet multiple-use objectives, and within the multiple-use objectives of a land management plan adopted pursuant to this section [of this Act], provide, where appropriate, to the degree practicable, for steps to be taken to preserve the diversity of tree species similar to that existing in the region controlled by the plan.” To meet this objective, the 2012 Planning Rule adopts a complementary ecosystem and species-specific approach known as a coarse-filter/fine-filter approach to maintaining species diversity (36 CFR 219.9).
    [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]
  • Zuni Fleabane
    Socorro Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis neomexicana) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico 5-YEAR REVIEW Socorro springsnail (Pyrgulopsis neomexicana) 1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 Reviewers Lead Region: Region 2, Southwest, Wendy Brown, Recovery Coordinator, 505-248-6664; Brady McGee, Recovery Biologist, 505-248-6657. Lead Field Office: New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, Marilyn Myers, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, 505-761-4754. Cooperating Office: Brian Lang, Invertebrate Biologist, New Mexico Game and Fish, 505-476-8108. 1.2 Methodology used to complete the review This review was conducted through public review notification and a comprehensive review of all documents regarding Socorro springsnail that were available to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (NMESFO). The Federal Register notice (73 FR 14995) announcing this review was published on March 20, 2008 and solicited new information about species biology, habitat conditions, conservation measures implemented, threats, trends, and Significant Portion of the Range from other agencies, both Federal and State, non- governmental organizations, academia, and the general public. No new information was received from this solicitation. The primary source of information used in this analysis was the 1991 final listing rule (56 FR 49646), the final recovery plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994), unpublished reports, and personal communication with Brian Lang, Invertebrate Biologist with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. This 5-year review document was drafted by Marilyn Myers, Senior Fish and Wildlife Biologist, NMESFO. 1.3 Background 1.3.1 FR Notice citation announcing initiation of this review: 73 FR 14995; March 20, 2008.
    [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]
  • Report on Legislation by the Animal Law Committee S. 1863
    CONTACT POLICY DEPARTMENT MARIA CILENTI 212.382.6655 | [email protected] ELIZABETH KOCIENDA 212.382.4788 | [email protected] REPORT ON LEGISLATION BY THE ANIMAL LAW COMMITTEE S. 1863 Sen. Lee To clarify that noncommercial species found entirely within the borders of a single State are not in interstate commerce or subject to regulation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 or any other provision of law enacted as an exercise of the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Native Species Protection Act THIS LEGISLATION IS OPPOSED I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LAW The Native Species Protection Act (the “Bill”) would remove “intrastate species” from the scope of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) of 1973, or any other provision of law under which regulatory authority is based on the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause. The Bill defines an “intrastate species” as any species of plant or fish or wildlife that is found entirely within the borders of a single state1 and that is not part of a national market for any commodity.2 Despite its name, the Native Species Protection Act does not protect native species; instead, by undermining the protections of the ESA, it puts these species at risk. If the Bill passes, roughly 50 animal species that exist purely within one state,3 such as the Nashville crayfish and the Utah prairie dog, 4 will no longer be protected by the ESA. 1 The ESA defines “State” as “any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.” 16 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of the North American Freshwater Snail Genus Pyrgulopsis (Hydrobiidae)
    A Review of the North American Freshwater Snail Genus Pyrgulopsis (Hydrobiidae) ROBERT HERSHLER SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ZOOLOGY • NUMBER 554 SERIES PUBLICATIONS OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION Emphasis upon publication as a means of "diffusing knowledge" was expressed by the first Secretary of the Smithsonian. In his formal plan for the Institution, Joseph Henry outlined a program that included the following statement: "It is proposed to publish a series of reports, giving an account of the new discoveries in science, and of the changes made from year to year in all branches of knowledge." This theme of basic research has been adhered to through the years by thousands of titles issued in series publications under the Smithsonian imprint, commencing with Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge in 1848 and continuing with the following active series: Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology Smithsonian Contributions to Astrophysics Smithsonian Contributions to Botany Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences Smithsonian Contributions to the Marine Sciences Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology Smithsonian Folklife Studies Smithsonian Studies in Air and Space Smithsonian Studies in History and Technology In these series, the Institution publishes small papers and full-scale monographs that report the research and collections of its various museums and bureaux or of professional colleagues in the world of science and scholarship. The publications are distributed by mailing lists to libraries, universities, and similar institutions throughout the world. Papers or monographs submitted for series publication are received by the Smithsonian Institution Press, subject to its own review for format and style, only through departments of the various Smithsonian museums or bureaux, where the manuscripts are given substantive review.
    [Show full text]