RIO GRANDE WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS QUARTERLY MEETING July 17, 2018 at 9:00 A-M. RIO GRANDE WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT CONFERENCE ROOM
Present: Greg Higel, President; Brian David, Vice-President; Dwight Martin, Secretaryl Treasurer; Peggy Godfrey, Director; Mike McClure, Director; Lewis Entz, Director; Cory Off, Director; Armando Valdez, Director; and, Bill McClure, Director.
Staff and Consultants: David Robbins, District Attorney; Pete Ampe, District Attorney; Cleave Simpson, General Manager; Cheryl Anderson, Office Manager; Clinton Phillips, District Engineer; Allen Davey, District Engineer; Chet Tokarsky, Well Technician; Chris Ivers, HCP Coordinator; and April Mondragon, Administrative Assistant.
Guests: Deb Sarason; David Hofmann; Erin Minks; Ruth Heide; Willie Hofner; Mike Kruse; Brenda Felmlee; and Leroy Salazar.
CALL TO ORDER President Greg Higel called the meeting to order at 9:06 a.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. There was a quorum present for the meeting.
INTRODUCTION OF STAFF & GUESTS President Higel welcomed all those present and asked for introductions.
APPROVE AGENDA President Higel asked for any changes or additions to the agenda. A motion was made by Bill McClure to approve the agenda as presented. The motion was seconded by Armando Valdez and unanimously approved.
APPROVE MINUTES President Higel asked for a motion to approve the minutes. A motion was made by Peggy Godfrey to approve the June 13, 201 8 Special Meeting minutes. The motion was seconded by Dwight Martin and unanimously approved.
PUBLIC COMMENT President Higel asked for public comment. Willie Hofner was present and voiced concern about a property line ownership dispute he had been dealing with. David Robbins suggested Mr. Hofner visit the local FSA office or file a complaint with the district court in order to resolve the matter.
ACTION ITEMS President Higel asked for Action Items.
1. Tuition Reimbursement request for Chet Tokarsky. A motion was made by Bill McClure to approve tuition reimbursement for Chet Tokarsky. The motion was seconded by Cory Off and unanimously approved.
2. Financial Statements. A motion was made by Lewis Entz to approve the financial statements as presented. The motion was seconded by Cory Off and unanimously approved.
3. UMate on Farm Bill progress. Cleave Simpson read an email from Christine Arbogast into record (copy attached to the minutes). The email provided the board with an update on the Farm Bill.
4. Consider Letter of Support for CPW conservation easement. Cleave Simpson provided the board with the limited information he had in reference to the conversation easement. Due to the lack of details, no decision was made nor was a vote taken to consider a letter of support for CPW at this time.
1 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì 5. Request to sign on to Conservation Agreement for Rio Grande Chub and Rio Grande Sucker. David Robbins provided the board with the history of the two fish. A motion was made by Cory Off to sign a supporting letter of agreement for the Conservation of the Rio Grande Chub and Rio Grande Sucker. The motion was seconded by Peggy Godfrey and unanimously approved.
6. The Rio Grande is dying and only a new compact will save her Denver Post article. Discussions were had on the newspaper article, Mr. Simpson stated it would be in the best interest of the District to not offer a response to the article.
MANAGER'S REPORT President Higel asked for the Manager's Report.
· Cleave Simpson provided the board with an outline of the budget process.
· A tentative hearing date of August 16, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. was set for the public hearing to adopt the third amended Plan of Water Management of Subdistrict No. 1.
ADJOURN Meeting was adjourned at 10:16 a.m. :"W)"iL"d::,in,w,,,b.h.,donO.,ob.,,6.20,8,a,,O,OOa.m.
Secreta' / reasurer
2 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì CONSERVATION AGREEMENT
FOR
RIO GRANDE CHUB
AND
RIO GRANDE SUCKER 4" " """"" "7= - " ?· V' '-X '
'"Wy " " E, Ye__ E N" y m "
&: C
...— U "' '% .,,
June 2018
`Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INVOLVED PARTIES 1
II. DISTRIBUTION AND STATUS OF FOCAL SPECIES 3
III. OTHER SPECIES BENEFITTED 4
IV. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES 4
V. DEVELOPMENT OF CONSERVATION STRATEGIES 5
VI. DEVELOPMENT OF STATUS ASSESSMENTS 5
VII. AUTHORITY 5
VIII. GOVERNING DOCUMENTS AND EXISTING POLICIES 7
IX. CONSERVATION AGREEMENT ADMINISTRATION 11
X. DURATION OF AGRFFMF.NT 12
XI. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) COMPLIANCE..... 12
XII. FEDERAL COMPLIANCE 12
XIII. LITERATURE CITED 13
XIV. SIGNATORIES 15
XV. SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS 29
Acknowledgments Preparation of the Agreement was coordinated by Joanna Hatt, Mike Ruhl, and Kirk Patten of the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. Biologists, researchers, and administrators from all signatory agencies and supporting organizations provided significant input to this document.
Citation RGC and RGS Conservation Team. 2018. Conservation Agreement for Rio Grande Chub and Rio Grande Sucker. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, NM. 35p.
`Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì 1 CONSERVATION AGREEMENT 2 for 3 RIO GRANDE CHUB 4 and 5 RIO GRANDE SUCKER 6 7 This Conservation Agreement (Agreement) has been developed to expedite 8 implementation of conservation measures for Rio Grande Chub (Gila pandora; hereafter 9 RGC) and Rio Grande Sucker (Catostomus plebeius; hereafter RGS) in Colorado and New 10 Mexico (and other states or nations that may elect to participate), as a collaborative and 11 cooperative effort among state and federal agencies, tribal entities, and other stakeholders. 12 Implementation of this Agreement will reduce or eliminate threats that may warrant RGC 13 and RGS being listed as special status species by state and federal agencies or listed under 14 the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. This Agreement is designed to 15 provide a framework for the long-term conservation of RGC and RGS.
16 I. INVOLVED PARTIES 17 Involved Parties are agencies and organizations with interests in the conservation of RGC 18 and RGS. Involved Parties may be added to this Agreement by addenda at any time with 19 unanimous consent of the Signatories. The following groups are committed to work 20 cooperatively to conserve RGC and RGS throughout their respective ranges, and have 21 further determined that a consistent approach, as described in this Agreement, is most 22 efficient for conserving both species. The Involved Parties as described below comprise 23 voting and non-voting members of the Conservation Team, hereafter Team. The Team 24 may also include technical and legal advisors and other members as deemed necessary by 25 the Signatories.
26 a. Signatories 27 This group includes entities with management authority for fish and wildlife and/or 28 organizations that own habitat historically or presently occupied by RGC and/or RGS. 29 Signatories are voting members of the Team. Each Signatory will designate a 30 representative and alternate representative to the Team.
Colorado Dept. of Natural Resources New Mexico Dept. of Game and Fish Division of Parks and Wildlife POBox 25112 1313 Sherman Street Santa Fe, NM 87504 Denver, CO 80203
U.S. Forest Service, Region 2 U.S. Forest Service, Region 3 1617 Cole Boulevard, Building 17 333 Broadway Boulevard SE Lakewood, CO 80401 Albuquerque, NM 87102
1 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 PO Box 1306 PO Box 25486 Albuquerque, NM 87103-1306 Denver, CO 80025
Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management 2850 Youngfield Street 301 Dinosaur Trail Lakewood, CO 80215-7093 POBox 27115 Santa Fe, NM 87502-0015
National Park Service Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Intermountain Region 4200 Smith School Road 12795 Alameda Parkway Austin, TX 78744 Denver, CO 80225
Jicarilla Apache Nation Pueblo of Santa Ana PO Box 507 02 Dove Road Dulce, NM 87528 Santa Ana Pueblo, NM 87004
Turner Enterprises, Inc. Coalition of Colorado Counties* 901 Technology Boulevard 232 W. Tomichi Avenue, Suite 204 Bozeman, MT 59718 Gunnison, CO 81230
31 *Inc1udes the counties of Hinsdale, Mineral, Rio Grande, Alamosa, San Juan, Saguache, 32 Costilla, Archuleta, and Conejos
33 b. Supporting Organizations 34 These groups support the work of the Team, attend meetings, and contribute time and 35 resources to RGC and RGS conservation and are non-voting members of the Team. Each 36 Supporting Organization may designate a representative to the Team.
Trout Unlimited New Mexico Council PO Box 32952 Santa Fe, NM 87594
Rio Grande Water Conservation District 8805 Independence Way Alamosa, CO 81101
Fishes of Texas Project Biodiversity Center University of Texas at Austin J.T. Patterson Labs Building, 128 2415 Speedway Austin, TX 78712
2 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì 37 II. DISTRIBUTION AND STATUS OF FOCAL SPECIES
38 a. Rio Grande Chub 39 I) Distribution 40 The historic range of RGC is widely accepted to include the headwaters and tributaries of 41 the Rio Grande and Pecos drainages of Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. There is less 42 certainty about the native status of RGC populations currently found in the Canadian 43 drainage; these populations may be native or may have arisen from introductions (Sublette 44 et al. 1990). Despite a reduction in abundance, aboriginal populations currently occupy 45 low-gradient, cool-water stream habitats in the Rio Grande, Pecos, and Canadian 46 drainages in New Mexico (Sublette et al. 1990) with populations in the Colorado portion 47 of the Rio Grande basin (Bestgen et al. 2003) and an isolated population in the Davis 48 Mountains in Texas (Miller and Hubbs 1962, TNHC 2016). Recent sampling has found 49 RGC persist in most of the drainages where the species was historically documented in 50 Colorado and New Mexico (Jones and Alves 2016, Caldwell 2016). Isolated populations 51 occur in the lower Rio Grande (e.g., Alamosa Creek) and Pecos drainages (e.g., Rio 52 Bonito and Rio Peiiasco; Galindo et al. 2016). 53 54 2) Status 55 Sublette et al. (1990) considered RGC to be stable in New Mexico. The species is not 56 federally listed under the ESA (1973), as amended, but a 90-day finding published in 2016 57 by the U-S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicated that the petitioned actions may be 58 warranted, requiring a 12-month review of the status of the species. Rio Grande Chub is 59 listed as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) in the State Wildlife Action 60 Plan for New Mexico (SWAP/NM; NMDGF 2016). The species is also listed as a SGCN 61 in the State Wildlife Action Plan for Colorado (CPW 2015), while in Texas, it has a state 62 status of threatened (Hubbs et al. 2008). Rio Grande Chub is a Regional Forester Sensitive 63 Species in Regions 2 and 3 and currently identified as Sensitive Species by the Bureau of 64 Land Management's New Mexico State Office.
65 b. Rio Grande Sucker 66 I) Distribution 67 The historic range of RGS is widely accepted to include low-gradient, cool water stream 68 habitats in the Rio Grande drainage of both Colorado and New Mexico and the Mimbres 69 drainage of New Mexico. There is less certainty about whether extant populations in the 70 Gila, Pecos, and San Francisco drainages resulted from introductions; specifically, 71 populations in Sapillo Creek (Buth and Crabtree 1985, McPhee et al. 2008), the Rio 72 Hondo (Sublette et al. 1990), and the San Francisco drainage in Arizona and New Mexico 73 (Minckley 1973, Sublette et al. 1990). The species also occurs in the following three states 74 of Mexico: Durango, Chihuahua, and Zacatecas (Miller 2005). Though Colorado RGS 75 populations declined and were locally extirpated from some historical locations through 76 the 1990s, reintroduction efforts have resulted in restoration of the species to many 77 streams (Rees and Miller 2005, Jones 2018). Sampling in Colorado (Jones and Alves 78 2016) and New Mexico in 2015 (Caldwell 2016) found the species was still present within 79 historically occupied drainages.
3 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì 80 81 2) Status 82 Sublette et al. (1990) considered RGS to be stable in New Mexico. However, densities of 83 RGS are generally lower when associated with high densities of non-native White Sucker 84 (Catostomus commersonii) and predatory fish species. Like RGC, the species is not 85 federally listed under the ESA (1973), as amended, but a 90-day finding published in 2016 86 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicated that the petitioned actions may be 87 warranted, requiring a 12-month review of the status of the species. It is considered a 88 SGCN in the SWAP/NM (NMDGF 2016) and is a state-listed endangered species in New 89 Mexico (Langlois et.al. 1994, Swift-Miller et al. 1999) and a SGCN in Colorado (CPW 90 2015). Rio Grande Sucker is a Regional Forester Sensitive Species in Regions 2 and 3 and 91 currently identified as Sensitive Species by the Bureau of Land Management's New 92 Mexico State Office. The species is not state-protected nor a species of concern in 93 Arizona.
94 III. OTHER SPECIES BENEFITTED 95 The primary focus of this Agreement is the conservation and enhancement of RGC, RGS, 96 and the watersheds upon which they depend; however, other native aquatic species 97 occurring within or adjacent to RGC and RGS habitat should also benefit. These species 98 include Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis), Longnose Dace 99 (Rhinichthys cataractae), Chihuahua Chub (Gila nigrescens), Spikedace (Meda fulgida), 100 Loach Minnow (Rhinichthys (Tiaroga) cobitis), Creek Chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), 101 Central Stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum), Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Lithobates 102 berlandieri), and Boreal Toad (Anaxyrus boreas). Additionally, terrestrial species 103 dependent upon riparian and aquatic species and habitats may also benefit from 104 conservation of watersheds that contain the RGS and RGS, for example, the New Mexico 105 Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius luteus).
106 IV. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
107 a. Goal 1 08 The overall goal of this agreement is to ensure the long-term viability (i.e., the ability of a 109 species to sustain populations in the wild over time) of RGC and RGS within their historic 110 range. The cooperators envision a future where threats to RGC and RGS are either 111 eliminated or managed to the greatest extent possible.
112 b. ObjectiVes 113 I) Identify and characterize all RGC and RGS populations and occupied habitat 114 Identify all waters with RGC and RGS populations. Monitor known populations 115 and their habitat to detect changes over time. 116 2) Secure and enhance populations 117 Secure and, if necessary, enhance al! known populations.
4 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì 118 3) Restore populations 119 Increase, as necessary, the number of populations by restoring RGC and RGS 120 within their native range. Local restoration goals and approaches will be developed 121 to meet this objective. 122 4) Secure and improve watershed conditions 123 Maintain and, if necessary, improve watershed conditions and instream habitat for 124 RGC and RGS. 125 5) Conduct public outreach 126 Develop RGC and RGS public outreach efforts and combine with Rio Grande 127 Cutthroat Trout outreach. 128 6) Share data 129 Build and maintain the RGC and RGS Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 130 Database (see Section VI) similar to the existing Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout GIS 131 Database so that information can readily be shared between and among agencies 132 and jurisdictions. 133 7) Facilitate and improve coordination 134 Maximize effectiveness of RGC and RGS conservation efforts by coordinating and 135 increasing synergy of Signatory efforts toward achieving a common goal.
136 V. DEVELOPMENT OF CONSERVATION STRATEGIES 137 The Goal and Objectives of this Agreement will be elaborated in a Conservation Strategy 138 for each species, hereafter Strategies, which will be developed by the Involved Parties 139 within two years of the implementation of the Agreement.
140 VI. DEVELOPMENT OF STATUS ASSESSMENTS 141 Range-wide Status Assessments, hereafter Assessments, will be developed for RGC and 142 RGS within five years of the implementation of this Agreement. Thereafter, Assessments 143 will be updated every 10 years or as deemed necessary by the Team. Results from the 144 Assessments will be considered in revision and renewal of the Agreement. 145 146 In order to develop Assessments, accurate spatial data on the current and historic range of 147 each species must be synthesized through development of GIS Databases, hereafter 148 Databases. The Team will develop Databases for RGC and RGS in parallel with 149 development of the Assessments.
150 VII. AUTHORITY 151 The authorities for the agencies and others to enter into this voluntary Agreement and 152 Strategies derive from the ESA and a National Memorandum of Agreement, which exists 153 between the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Bureau of 154 Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), and the U.S. Department of 155 Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The National Memorandum of 156 Agreement regarding ESA consultation and coordination (MOU #94-SMU-058) among 157 the participating federal agencies is in furtherance of conservation of species tending 158 toward federal listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA (Section 2; Section 5 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì 159 4(a)(l)). The authority of Colorado Parks and Wildlife to manage wildlife in Colorado is 160 declared in CPW Statutes 33-1-101. The authority of New Mexico Department of Game 161 and Fish to manage wildlife in New Mexico is declared in Chapter 17 of New Mexico 162 Statutes Annotated (NMSA), with the exemption of tribal lands. The authority of Texas 163 Parks and Wildlife Department to manage wildlife in Texas is declared in Texas 164 Administrative Code Title 31. 165 166 Implementation of the Agreement and Strategies will be through aforementioned federal, 167 state, tribal authorities and others such as the Clean Water Act, National Forest 168 Management Act (NFMA), Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), NEPA, 169 Sikes Act of 1974, as amended, Wilderness Act of 1964, as amended, National Wild and 170 Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Public Rangelands Improvement Act of 1978, and the Council 171 on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Part 1501). 172 173 · This Agreement is subject to and is intended to be consistent with all 174 applicable federal, tribal, and state laws and interstate compacts. The 175 Signatories hereto enter into this Agreement under federal, state, and tribal 176 laws as applicable. 177 178 · All Involved Parties recognize they each have specific statutory responsibilities 179 that cannot be delegated, particularly with respect to the management and 180 conservation of wildlife, its habitat, and the management, development and 181 allocation of water resources. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to 182 abrogate any of the parties' respective responsibilities. 183 184 " This instrument in no way restricts Involved Parties from participating in 185 similar activities with other public or private agencies, organizations or 186 individuals. 187 188 · All Involved Parties do not waive any immunity provided by federal, state, 189 local or tribal laws by entering into this Agreement, and each fully retains all 190 immunities and defenses provided by law with respect to any action based on 191 or occurring as a result of this Agreement. 192 193 · All federally recognized tribal entities maintain jurisdictional authority relative 194 to species, habitat, and land use management within their reservation 195 boundaries. 196 197 · Modifications to this Agreement must be mutually agreed upon by all 198 Signatories. Such changes shall be executed as an addendum to the original 199 Agreement.
6 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì 200 VIII. GOVERNING DOCUMENTS AND EXISTING POLICIES
201 a. Federal Management Practices and Policies 202 I) U.S. Forest Service 203 The Santa Fe, Carson, Lincoln, Gila, Cibola, Apache-Sitgreaves, and Rio Grande 204 National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans (Forest Plans) provide 205 guidance for all resource management activities on the National Forests (NFS; 16 206 U.S.C. § 1604). The Forest Plans establish managemeht standards and guidelines that 207 ensure habitat is managed to provide for the diversity of plant and animal species and 208 the persistence of native species in the planning area. Both RGC and RGS are 209 currently identified as Regional Forester Sensitive Species in both Region 2 210 (Colorado) and Region 3 (Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico). The current Forest Plans 211 provide guidance and direction to manage Sensitive Species, which are not currently 212 federally listed as endangered or threatened, to sustain viability and prevent the need 213 for future listing as threatened or endangered. If a species is proposed for listing, 214 Forest actions will be evaluated to determine the effect of management practices on 215 habitat and the need for conferencing with FWS. If a species is listed, consultation 216 with FWS will be required. Conservation activities will be pursued where applicable 217 and areas where Sensitive Species occur will be managed to maintain and/or enhance 218 habitat. 219 220 The Santa Fe, Carson, Lincoln, Gila, Cibola and Rio Grande National Forests are 221 currently in various stages of plan revision under the 2012 planning rules (36 CFR Part 222 219). The new forest planning rule does not use Sensitive Species, but has replaced it 223 with Species of Conservation Concern (SCC). Species of Conservation Concern are 224 species known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional forester has 225 determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern 226 about the species' capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area. The 227 development teams for the revised Forest Plans on the Carson, Santa Fe, and Cibola 228 NFs in New Mexico and the Rio Grande NF in Colorado have identified the RGC and 229 RGS as SCC. The Gila NF has identified RGS as SCC. The Lincoln NF is early in 230 development but has identified RGC as a potential SCC. As SCC, the revised Forest 231 Plans on these NFs must contain Forest Plan components that maintain the ecological 232 conditions necessary for RGC and RGS long-term viability. 233 234 2) National Park Service 235 Fisheries management in the National Park System is directed by policy and 236 guidelines that directs NPS to manage parks and monuments "to conserve the scenery 237 and the natural and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the 238 enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them 239 unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations" (NPS Organic Act of 1916, as 240 amended). Management policies emphasize the restoration and conservation of natural 241 assemblages of native species. Native fish are managed with an emphasis on 242 preservation or restoration of natural behavior, genetic diversity and ecological 243 integrity. 244
7 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì 245 3) Bureau of Land Management 246 It is BLM policy to manage or conserve al! known special plant and animal species not 247 yet listed as threatened or endangered to minimize the need for listing those species by 248 either federal or state governments in the future. Guidance for these species is 249 provided by the Special Status Species Management criteria (BLM Manual Section 250 6840) under the authorities of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.), as amended. The 251 San Luis Resource Area Management Plan identifies resource and land use objectives 252 and management actions for activities and lands administered by the BLM. Resource 253 objectives include managing streams to maintain fisheries and to enhance, recover, or 254 re-establish special status plants and animals. Both RGC and RGS are currently 255 identified as Sensitive Species by the New Mexico State Office. 256 257 4) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 258 RGC and RGS are currently petitioned species for federal listing under the ESA 259 (1973). Sections 2 and 7 of the ESA allow the FWS to enter into this Agreement and 260 these Strategies. Section 2 of the ESA states that encouraging interested parties, 261 through federal financial assistance and a system of incentives, to develop and 262 maintain conservation programs is a key to safeguarding the Nation's heritage in fish, 263 wildlife, and plants. Section 7 of the ESA requires the FWS to review programs that it 264 administers and to utilize such programs in furtherance of the purposes of the ESA. By 265 entering into this conservation agreement, the FWS is utilizing its existing programs to 266 further the conservation of the RGC and RGS.
267 b. State Policies and Regulations that Protect Fish and Fish Habitat 268 I) Colorado 269 In Colorado, RGC and RGS are both identified as SGCN in the SWAP/CO (CPW 270 2015). State policy dictates "that the wildlife and their environment (habitat) are to be 271 protected, preserved, enhanced, and managed for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of 272 the people of the State and its visitors" (CPW Statutes 33-1-101). Scientific collection 273 of wildlife is regulated through a permit system (CPW Regulations, Chapter 13) 274 requiring a formal application stating project objectives, sampling methodologies, 275 sampling sites, and need for collecting. Colorado policies and regulations protect fish 276 habitat and populations from transmission of diseases by requiring annual health 277 inspection and certification of all production and holding facilities (Wildlife 278 Commission Policy D-9 and CPW Regulations, Chapter 0, #14 and Appendices C and 279 D). Specific to warmwater fishes, all facilities must annually be certified free of Viral 280 Hemorrhagic Septicemia Virus (CPW Regulations, Chapter 0, #14). 281 282 2) New Mexico 283 In New Mexico, RGC and RGS are considered SGCN according to the SWAP/NM 284 (NMDGF 2016). NMAC 19.35.6 requires a scientific collection permit for take of 285 state-protected species for educational or scientific purposes. Neither RGC nor RGS 286 are state-listed, but as many of these state-protected species occur statewide, any 287 person attempting to sample RGC or RGS would be required to have a state collection 288 permit because of the potential to encounter state-protected species. NMAC 19.35.7.15
8 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì 289 requires disease free certification for reportable pathogens for all private and public 290 hatcheries who wish to import fish for release into waters of the State. In addition, 291 New Mexico Department of Game and Fish does not stock any fish that is positive for 292 a pathogen described in NMAC 19.35.7.15. 293 294 3) Texas 295 In Texas, RGC is identified as SGCN and Threatened in the Texas Conservation 296 Action Plan (TPWD 2012). Details concerning state endangered or threatened species 297 are contained in Chapters 67 and 68 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code and 298 Sections 65.171 - 65.176 (Threatened and Endangered Nongame Species) of Title 31 299 of the Texas Administrative Code. Scientific collection of wildlife is regulated through 300 the Wildlife Diversity Program at Texas Parks and Wildlife Department through a 301 permit system requiring project objectives, methods, and reporting metrics.
302 c. Management and Policies regarding Tribal Management 303 It is well-established that Indian tribes in the United States are sovereign entities, and the 304 federal government is legally required to protect Indian trust resources for the benefit of 305 respective pueblos, nations, and tribes. Indian trust resources generally include land, 306 water, air, minerals, and wildlife, reserved or otherwise owned or held in benefit for 307 Indian pueblos, nations, and tribes. In managing trust lands or assisting tribes in doing so, 308 the federal government must act for the exclusive benefit of the tribes and ensure that 309 Indian lands and resources are protected and maintained for the physical, economic, 310 social, and spiritual well-being of tribes. 311 312 Tribal lands provide traditional, cultural, social, and economic benefits to Native 313 Americans. As sovereign nations and tribes, these lands are not subject to the same public 314 laws that govern other lands within the United States, either public or private. The United 315 States' trust responsibility is a well-established legal obligation that originates from the 316 unique, historical relationship between the United States and Native Americans. As a 317 result, several Executive Branch administrative directives, orders, and policies focus 318 directly on the relationships of FWS and other Department of Interior (DOI) agencies with 319 tribes. The following are examples: Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994, 320 Secretarial Order 3206, Secretarial Order 3342, Executive Order No. 13175, and the FWS 321 Native American Policy. 322 323 The Presidential Memorandum of April 29, 1994 requires federal departments to consult 324 with tribal governments to the greatest extent practicable prior to taking actions that affect 325 tribal governments. Federal departments must assess the impacts of federal activities on 326 tribal trust resources and ensure that tribal rights and concerns are taken into account 327 during plan development and program implementation. 328 329 Secretarial Order 3206 reminds Interior agencies, bureaus and offices that Indian lands are 330 not subject to the same controls as federal lands. It instructs Interior agencies, bureaus, and 331 offices to recognize that tribes are appropriate governmental entities to manage their lands 332 and tribal trust resources and instructs them to support tribal measures that preclude the 333 need for conservation restrictions. At the same time, the Order strives to harmonize tribal
9 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì 334 concerns and interest about the ESA with federal mandates to enforce it; and allows the 335 tribes to develop their own conservation plans for the listed species that are more 336 responsive to tribal needs. The order also states tribes have considerable authority to 337 manage endangered species on Indian lands. 338 339 Secretarial Order 3342 encourages cooperative management agreements and other 340 collaborative partnerships between DOI bureaus, resource managers, and tribes; and 341 establishes a process and provides institutional support to ensure land and resource 342 managers evaluate and develop opportunities to further establish partnerships that benefit 343 both tribes and federal agencies. 344 345 Executive Order No. 13175 instructs agencies, to the extent practicable and permitted by 346 law, to consider any application by a tribal government for a waiver of statutory or 347 regulatory requirements with a general view toward increasing opportunities for flexible 348 approaches to governmental policies. 349 350 Additionally, the FWS Native American Policy provides a consistent, yet flexible, 351 national framework that encourages efficient and creative ways to maximize tribal 352 resource conservation through improved federal-tribal working relationships. It puts 353 stronger emphasis on co-management and collaborative management of natural and 354 cultural resources, places added emphasis on implementation and accountability, and 355 promotes building tribal capacity and the use of tribal knowledge in the FWS's 356 collaborative Service-tribal law enforcement efforts where possible. Tribes have gained 357 considerable natural resource management expertise and the FWS, along with other 358 federal agencies, recognize and acknowledge this expertise. Tribes have moved forward in 359 an effort to enhance and establish new ways to interact with FWS regarding the 360 conservation of RGC and RGS. 361 362 Developing cooperative or conservation agreements between tribal governments and FWS 363 that specifically address RGC and RGS conservation on tribal lands could serve as a 364 mechanism to establish partnerships that would enhance the status of these species, while 365 still providing tribes the flexibility to determine the extent of their involvement in ESA 366 conservation. These documents establish a framework by which FWS and tribes will 367 recognize differences of opinion and interpretation, and work through problems toward a 368 common goal of conserving RGC and RGS. These agreements and/or management plans 369 could describe commitments tribes are willing to make to protect and manage RGC and 370 RGS and could also describe commitments FWS would make to assist tribes in addressing 371 RGC and RGS on tribal lands. Formal agreements may not be necessary when tribal 372 actions already meet mutually beneficial goals and conservation management is already 373 underway by tribes. 374 375 New Mexico — In New Mexico, the State has multiple policies and an executive order 376 outlining the framework in working with its New Mexico tribal entities. The Statement of 377 Policy and Process (2003) establishes and promotes a relationship of cooperation, 378 coordination, open communication and good will, and to work in good faith to amicably 379 and fairly resolve issues and difference. Executive Order 2005-004 "Statewide Adoption of
10 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì 380 Tribal Consultation Plans " directs 17 State agencies to consult with all of New Mexico's 381 22 Indian Nations, Tribes, and Pueblos in adopting tribal consultation plans that address 382 "the agency's operations that interact with tribal governments, communities, and/or tribal 383 members within New Mexico." The State established the "Protecting and Promoting New 384 Mexico 's Environment Group" to develop an overarching tribal communication and 385 collaboration policy that promotes effective communication and collaboration, promotes 386 positive government-to-government relations, promotes cultural competency in providing 387 effective services to New Mexico nations, tribes, and pueblos, and establishes a method 388 for notifying state agency employees of the purpose and requirements of the tribal 389 communication and collaboration policy.
390 IX. CONSERVATION AGREEMENT ADMINISTRATION 391 Responsibilities of the Team shall include coordinating RGC and RGS conservation 392 activities among the agencies and making recommendations for the conservation of RGC 393 and RGS to the administrators of the Signatories. The four general administrative actions 394 outlined below will be implemented.
395 a. Coordinating Conservation Activities 396 I) The Team will meet at least annually to document progress toward the goals and 397 objectives of the Strategies, develop range-wide priorities, review the annual 398 conservation work plans of each Involved Party, and coordinate tasks and 399 resources to most effectively implement conservation actions. 400 2) Annual meetings and other Team functions will be coordinated by a chairperson. 401 The chairperson position will rotate between the state fish and wildlife agencies of 402 Colorado and New Mexico. In even years the position will be held by New Mexico 403 and in odd years by Colorado. 404 3) Locations of the meetings will alternate between the states of Colorado and New 405 Mexico aligning with the state holding the chairperson position. 406 4) Updates to the RGC and RGS Databases will occur on an annual basis. 407 5) Team meetings will be open to the public. Meeting summaries and progress reports 408 will be available to the Team and to other interested parties. Further, interested 409 government agencies and conservation groups may be given opportunity to review 410 and provide input on specific actions.
411 b. Implementing the Conservation Strategies 412 Each Signatory will coordinate, implement, and monitor actions in the Strategies 413 for which they and their cooperators are responsible, subject to available funding. 414 Accomplishments will be reviewed in an annual summary report at Team meetings 415 to establish progress toward the Strategies. Accomplishments will be summarized 416 in the subsequent Assessments (see Section VI above).
417 c. Funding Conservation Actions 418 It is understood that all funds required for and expended in accordance with this 419 Agreement are subject to approval by the appropriate federal, state, tribal, and 420 local appropriations. This instrument is neither a fiscal nor a funds obligation
11 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì 421 document. Any endeavor involving reimbursement or contribution of funds 422 between parties to this instrument will be handled in accordance with applicable 423 laws, regulations, and procedures, including those for government procurement 424 and printing. Such endeavors will be outlined in separate agreements that shall be 425 made in writing by representatives of the parties and shall be independently 426 authorized by appropriate statutory authority. This instrument does not provide 427 such authority. Specifically, this instrument does not establish authority for 428 noncompetitive awards to the cooperator of any contract or other agreement. Any 429 contract or agreement for training or other services must fully comply with all 430 applicable requirements for competition.
431 d. Conservation Progress Assessments 432 I) The Team will create Assessments as described above (see Section VI). The 433 Assessments will include information on the current distribution, presence of 434 competing species, and new or existing threats to RGC and RGS. This information 435 will be used to evaluate the foreseeable risks and general population health of 436 existing populations. The Assessments will also discuss progress towards meeting 437 the goals and objectives outlined in the Strategies. 438 439 2) Copies of the Assessments will be made available to cooperators and interested 440 parties upon request.
441 X. DURATION OF AGREEMENT 442 The term of this Agreement shall be 10 years. The Agreement may be renewed by the 443 Involved Parties following the initial 10 year period. Modifications to the Agreement may 444 be made upon renewal or at any time by addendum with the unanimous consent of the 445 Signatories. Any Involved Party may withdraw from this Agreement with 60-days written 446 notice to the other Involved Parties.
447 XI. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) COMPLIANCE 448 Signing this Agreement is covered under authorities outlined in Section VII. Each 449 Signatory holds the responsibility to review planned actions for their area of concern to 450 ensure conformance with existing land use plans and to ensure NEPA and other applicable 451 compliance.
452 XII. FEDERAL COMPLIANCE 453 During the performance of this Agreement, the participants agree to abide by the terms of 454 Executive Order 11246, as amended on nondiscrimination and will not discriminate 455 against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity 456 or national origin. 457 458 No member or delegate to Congress or resident Commissioner shall be admitted to any 459 share or part of this Agreement, or to any benefit that may arise there from, but this 460 provision shall not be construed to extend to this Agreement if made with a corporation 461 for its general benefit.
12 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì 462 XIII. LITERATURE CITED 463 Bestgen, K. R., Compton, R. I., K. A. Zelasko, and J. A. Alves. 2003. Distribution and 464 status of Rio Grande chub in Colorado. Final report to the Colorado Division of 465 Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO. 466 467 Buth, D.G., and C.B. Crabtree. 1985. A comparison of the genetic characteristics of the 468 Zuni sucker (Catostomus discobolus yarrowi), the bluehead sucker (Catostomus 469 discobolus), and the Rio Grande sucker (Catostomus plebeius). New Mexico 470 Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, NM. 471 472 Caldwell, J. 2016. Conservation planning: Rio Grande chub and Rio Grande sucker. New 473 Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, NM. 474 475 Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). 2015. Colorado's 2015 State Wildlife Action Plan. 476 Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 477 478 Galindo, R., W.D. Wilson, and C.A. Caldwell. 2016. Geographic distribution of genetic 479 diversity in populations of Rio Grande Chub (Gila pandora). Conservation 480 Genetics 17: 1081-1091. 481 482 Fuller, P. 2017. Gila pandora. USGS Nonindigenous Aquatic Species Database, 483 Gainesville, FL. Available at: 484 https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx ?speciesID=541. 485 486 Hubbs, C., R.J. Edwards, and G.P. Garrett. 2008. An annotated checklist of the freshwater 487 fishes of Texas, with keys to identification of species. Texas Academy of Science 488 43: 1-87. 489 490 Jones, P. 2018. Rio Grande Sucker Stocking Assessment. Presentation to the Rio Grande 491 Chub and Sucker Conservation Team, 30-31 January 2018. 492 493 Jones, P., and J. Alves. 2016. Rio Grande Chub and Sucker Conservation Actions in 494 Colorado. Presentation to the Rio Grande Chub and Sucker Conservation Team, 495 27-28 January 2016. 496 497 Langlois, D., J. Alves, and J. Apker. 1994. Rio Grande Sucker Recovery Plan. Colorado 498 Division of Parks and Wildlife, Denver, CO. 499 500 McPhee, M.V., M.J. Osborne, and T.F. Turner. 2008. Genetic diversity, population 501 structure and demographic history of the Rio Grande sucker, Catostomus 502 (Pantosteus) plebeius, in New Mexico. Copeia 2008: 191-199. 503 504 Miller, R.R. 2005. Freshwater Fishes of Mexico. The University of Chicago Press, 505 Chicago, IL. 506
13 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì 507 Miller, R.R., and C. Hubbs. 1962. Gila pandora, a cyprinid new to the Texas fish fauna. 508 Texas Journal ofScience 14:111-113. 509 510 Minckley, W.L. 1973. Fishes of Arizona. Arizona Fish and Game Department. Sims 511 Printing Company, Inc., Phoenix, AZ. 512 513 New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF). 2016. State Wildlife Action Plan 514 for New Mexico. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, Santa Fe, NM. 515 516 Rees, D.E., and W.J. Miller. 2005. Rio Grande Sucker (Catostomus plebeius): a technical 517 conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Fort 518 Collins, CO. 519 520 Sublette, J.E., M.D. Hatch, and M. Sublette. 1990. The Fishes of New Mexico. University 521 of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM. 522 523 Swift-Miller, S.M., B.M. Johnson, R.T. Muth, and D. Langlois. 1999. Distribution, 524 abundance, and habitat use of Rio Grande sucker (Catostomus plebeius) in Hot 525 Creek, Colorado. Southwestern Naturalist 44: 42-48. 526 527 Texas Natural History Collection (TNHC). 2016. Specimen records of Gila pandora from 528 Little Aguja Canyon in Davis Mountain Preserve. Accessed through the FishNet2 529 Portal, www.fishnet2.org, 2018-01-24. 530
14 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì 531 XIV. SIGNATORIES 532 This Agreement takes effect upon the signature of the directors of the following:
Colorado Dept. of Natural Resources New Mexico Dept. of Game and Fish Division of Parks and Wildlife POBox 25112 1313 Sherman Street Santa Fe, NM 87504 Denver, CO 80203
U.S. Forest Service, Region 2 U.S. Forest Service 1617 Cole Boulevard, Building 17 Southwestern Region Lakewood, CO 80401 333 Broadway Boulevard SE Albuquerque, NM 87102
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 PO Box 1306 PO Box 25486 Albuquerque, NM 87103-1306 Denver, CO 80025
Bureau of Land Management Bureau of Land Management 2850 Youngfield Street 301 Dinosaur Trail Lakewood, CO 80215-7093 PO Box 27115 Santa Fe, NM 87502-0015
National Park Service Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Intermountain Region 4200 Smith School Road 12795 Alameda Parkway Austin, TX 78744 Denver, CO 80225
Jicarilla Apache Nation Pueblo of Santa Ana PO Box 507 02 Dove Road Dulce, NM 87528 Santa Ana Pueblo, NM 87004
Turner Enterprises, Inc. Coalition of Colorado Counties 901 Technology Boulevard 232 W. Tomichi Avenue, Suite 204 Bozeman, MT 59718 Gunnison, CO 81230
15 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì -Signature Page-
1. Colorado Department of Natural Resources Division of Parks and Wildlife 1313 Sherman Street Denver, CO 80203
Bob Broscheid, Director Date
15 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì -Signature Page-
2. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish POBox25112 Santa Fe, NM 87504
Alexandra Sandoval, Director Date
16 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì -Signature Page-
3. U.S. Forest Service, Region 2 1617 Cole Boulevard, Building 17 Lakewood, CO 80401
Brian Ferebee, Regional Forester Date
17 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì -Signature Page-
4. L".S. Forest Service, Southwestern Region 333 Broadway Boulevard SE Albuquerque, NM 87102
Calvin Joyner, Regional Forester Date
18 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì -Signature Page-
5. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2 PO Box 1306 Albuquerque, NM 87103-1306
Amy Lueders, Regional Director Date
19 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì -Signature Page-
6. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 PO Box 25486 Denver, CO 80025
Noreen Walsh, Regional Director Date
20 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì -Signature Page-
7. Bureau of Land Management 2850 Youngfield Street Lakewood, CO 80215-7093
Gregory Shoop, Acting State Director Date
21 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì -Signature Page-
8. Bureau of Land Management POBox 27115 Santa Fe, NM 87502-0115
Aden Seidlitz, Acting State Director Date
22 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì -Signature Page-
9. National Park Service Intermountain Region 12795 Alameda Parkway Denver, CO 80225
Sue Masica, Regional Director Date
23 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì -Signature Page-
10. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road Austin, TX 78744
Craig Bonds, Inland Fisheries Division Director Date
24 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì -Signature Page-
11. Jicarilla Apache Nation PO Box 507 Dulce, NM 87528
Levi Pesata, President Date
25 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì -Signature Page-
12. Pueblo of Santa Ana 02 Dove Road Santa Ana Pueblo, NM 87004
Glenn Tenorio, Governor Date
26 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì -Signature Page-
13. Turner Enterprises, Inc. 901 Technology Boulevard Bozeman, MT 59718
Carter Kruse, Director of Conservation Date
27 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì -Signature Page-
14. Coalition of Colorado Counties 232 W. Tomichi Avenue, Suite 204 Gunnison, CO 81230
Michael P. O'Loughlin, Attorney & Administrator Date
28 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì XV. SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS
Trout Unlimited New Mexico Council P.O. Box 32952 Santa Fe, NM 87594
Rio Grande Water Conservation District 880S Independence Way Alamosa, CO 81101
Fishes of Texas Project Biodiversity Center University of Texas at Austin J.T. Patterson Labs Building, 128 2415 Speedway Austin, TX 78712
29 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì -Signature Page-
1. Trout Unlimited New Mexico Council P.O. Box 32952 Santa Fe, NM 87594
Art Vollmer, State Council Chairperson Date
30 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì -Signature Page-
3. Fishes of Texas Project Biodiversity Center University of Texas at Austin 2415 Speedway Austin, TX 78712
Dean Hendrickson, Curator of Ichthyology Date
32 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì -Signature Page-
2. Rio Grande Water Conservation District 8805 Independence Way Alamosa, CO 81101
,,,,!ii,!i!,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,?,/n/n?
31 `Ìi`ÊÜÌ ÊÌ iÊ`iÊÛiÀÃÊvÊ vÝÊ*ÀÊ* Ê `ÌÀÊ
/ÊÀiÛiÊÌ ÃÊÌVi]ÊÛÃÌ\Ê ÜÜÜ°Vi°VÉÕV° Ì