DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 6, 1996 / Proposed Rules 4401 Whooping Cranes in the Wild in the Dated: October 20, 1995

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 6, 1996 / Proposed Rules 4401 Whooping Cranes in the Wild in the Dated: October 20, 1995 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 6, 1996 / Proposed Rules 4401 whooping cranes in the wild in the Dated: October 20, 1995. and its associated strategy to reduce experimental population area for George T. Frampton, Jr., threats to the Virgin spinedace that educational purposes, scientific Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and otherwise would warrant its listing as a purposes, the enhancement of Parks. threatened species under the propagation or survival of the species, [FR Doc. 96±2485 Filed 2±5±96; 8:45 am] Endangered Species Act of 1973, as and other conservation purposes BILLING CODE 4310±55±M amended (Act). The Agreement will consistent with the Act and in reestablish and maintain water flows accordance with applicable State fish required for the Virgin spinedace and and wildlife conservation laws and 50 CFR Part 17 will restore 50 percent of its lost historical habitat. On April 10, 1995, the regulations. RIN 1018±AC53 (4) * * * Service's Salt Lake City Field Office Endangered and Threatened Wildlife received a letter from one of the (ii) Relocate a whooping crane that and Plants; Withdrawal of the petitioners, the Bonneville Chapter of has moved outside the Kissimmee Proposed Rule to List the Fish Virgin the American Fisheries Society, stating Prairie or the Rocky Mountain range of Spinedace as Threatened and that with the implementation of the the experimental population when Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule to Agreement the Virgin spinedace no removal is necessary or requested; Designate Critical Habitat for the Virgin longer warrants listing. The other * * * * * Spinedace petitioner, Southern Utah Wilderness (8) Geographic areas that nonessential Alliance, still supports listing of the AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Virgin spinedace because of concerns experimental populations inhabit Interior. include the followingÐ that the Agreement will not be fully ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal. implemented or recover the species. (i) The entire State of Florida. The ADDRESSES: The complete file for this reintroduction site will be the SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) withdraws the May 18, rule is available for inspection, by Kissimmee Prairie portions of Polk, appointment, during normal business Osceola, Highlands, and Okeechobee 1994, proposed rule (59 FR 25875) to list the fish Virgin spinedace hours at the Utah Field Office, counties. Current information indicates Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and that the Kissimmee Prairie is within the (Lepidomeda mollispinis mollispinis) as a threatened species and also withdraws Wildlife Service, 145 East 1300 South, historic range of the whooping crane in Suite 404, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115. Florida. There are no other extant the portion of the April 5, 1995, proposed critical habitat designation for The complete file for this rule also will populations of whooping cranes that be available for public inspection at the could come into contact with the the Virgin spinedace (60 FR 17296). The Virgin spinedace, a small fish in the Washington County Public Library in St. experimental population. The only two George, Utah. extant populations occur well west of minnow family (Cyprinidae), is endemic FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. the Mississippi River. The Aransas/ to the Virgin River drainage of Robert D. Williams, Assistant Field Wood Buffalo National Park population southwestern Utah, northwestern Supervisor, Salt Lake City Field Office, nests in the Northwest Territories and Arizona, and southeastern Nevada. The at the above address, telephone (801) adjacent areas of Alberta, Canada Virgin spinedace was once common to 524±5001. primarily within the boundaries of the abundant in clear water tributaries of Wood Buffalo National Park, and the Virgin River and in some mainstem SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: reaches above Pah Tempe (La Verkin) winters along the Central Texas Gulf of Background Mexico coast at Aransas National Springs near Hurricane, Utah. It was Wildlife Refuge. Whooping cranes also occasionally found in most reaches The Virgin spinedace belongs to one adhere to ancestral breeding grounds of the river below Pah Tempe Springs, of three genera of a unique, endemic leaving little possibility that individuals with the exception of the mouth of tribe of western cyprinids, the from the extant population will stray Quail Creek and the mouth of Beaver Plagopterini. Adult Virgin spinedace into Florida or the Rocky Mountain Dam Wash, where Virgin spinedace measure 80±120 mm (3±5 in) in length Population. Studies of whooping cranes were once reported common. and have a broad, flat silvery body with have shown that migration is learned Approximately 37 to 40 percent of a brassy sheen. They are usually found rather than innate behavior. The Virgin spinedace historical habitat has in clear, cool streams that are experimental population released at been lost due to human impacts which interspersed with pools, runs, and Kissimmee Prairie is expected to remain include the introduction of nonnative riffles. Rinne (1971) found that Virgin within the prairie region of central fishes, dewatering for agricultural spinedace inhabited pools, often with Florida; and purposes, mining, and urban undercut banks, debris, or boulders. The development. These impacts have Virgin spinedace feeds primarily on (ii) The State of Colorado, Idaho, New resulted in habitat fragmentation and aquatic insect life (Rinne 1971, Gregor Mexico, Utah, and the western half of continue to threaten the existence of the and Deacon 1988, Angradi et al. 1991), Wyoming. Birds in this area do not Virgin spinedace. and their feeding habits are dependent come in contact with whooping cranes Subsequent to publication of the upon the types of food available. The of the Aransas/Wood Buffalo proposed rule, the State of Utah Virgin spinedace is endemic to the Population. developed the Virgin Spinedace Virgin River drainage, a tributary to the * * * * * Conservation Agreement and Strategy Colorado River of southwestern Utah, (Agreement) for the Virgin spinedace to northwestern Arizona, and southeastern § 17.95 [Amended] ensure that conservation measures and Nevada. The historical distribution of 4. Section 17.95(b) is amended by recovery actions needed for the fish's the Virgin spinedace is not well deleting the maps and descriptions of continued existence are initiated and documented (Valdez et al. 1991). The critical habitat for the whooping crane carried out. In June 1995, the eight species was probably common to in the States of Idaho, Colorado and signatory parties to the Agreement abundant in tributaries of the Virgin New Mexico. began implementation of the Agreement River and some mainstem reaches above 4402 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 6, 1996 / Proposed Rules Pah Tempe (La Verkin) Springs, near habitat was proposed for the Virgin species. Appropriate Federal and State Hurricane, Utah (Holden et al. 1974). spinedace, Virgin River chub (Gila agencies, county governments, scientific The Virgin spinedace was probably less seminuda), and woundfin (Plagopterus organizations, and other interested abundant in the mainstem Virgin River argentissumus) (60 FR 17296). On April parties were contacted and requested to below Pah Tempe Springs, with the 11, 1995, the Service signed the comment. A notice inviting general exception of the mouths of Quail Creek Agreement developed by the State of public comment on the proposed listing and Beaver Dam Wash, where the Virgin Utah. was published in the following spinedace was a common member of the newspapers: Salt Lake Tribune/Desert Summary of Comments and fauna. News, St. George Daily Spectrum, Las Recommendations The proposal (59 FR 25875; May 18, Vegas Review Journal/Las Vegas Sun, 1994) to list the Virgin spinedace as In accordance with the July 1, 1994, Kingman Daily Miner, and the Mesquite threatened and a subsequent proposal Federal Register notice (59 FR 34270) Desert Valley Times. Requests to hold (60 FR 17296; April 5, 1995) to which announced a statement of public hearings on the proposed listing designate critical habitat were based on interagency cooperative policy for peer were received from the Washington the decline in the range of and review of activities under the Act (16 County Water Conservancy District, and continued threats to the species. The U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), independent peer from Congressman James H. Hansen's present distribution of Virgin spinedace review was requested on the proposed office (1st District, Utah). On June 30, is substantially smaller than its former listing of the Virgin spinedace as a 1994, the Service published a notice in range, with approximately 37 to 40 threatened species. This review process the Federal Register (59 FR 33724) percent (83 kilometers (km) or 52 miles is intended to complement the Service's announcing the public hearing and (mi)) of its habitat lost due to human existing public review process in listing extending the comment period until impacts (Valdez et al. 1991, Addley and and recovery, and to ensure that the best August 17, 1994. In addition to the Hardy 1993). Much of this habitat loss biological and commercial information Federal Register notice and has occurred recently. Approximately is being used in the decision making announcements in newspapers, a letter 60 percent of the habitat loss has process. According to policy, when was sent to all interested parties occurred since the 1950's and is directly listing a species the Service is
Load more

Recommended publications
  • LITTLE COLORADO RIVER SPINEDACE, Lepidomeda Vitata RECOVERY PLAN
    DRAFT LITTLE COLORADO RIVER SPINEDACE, Lepidomeda vitata RECOVERY PLAN prepared by: C.O. Minckley U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2 Parker Fishery Resource Office, Parker, Arizona 85344 August 1994 for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico ' DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available, subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approvals of any individuals or agencies (involved in the plan formulation), other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. ...) i ' ,4 , ' P DRAF1- ig l Li &a-liATION8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 199. Little Colorado River spinedace, Lepidomeda vittata Recovery Plan. Phoenix, AZ pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service: 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 301/492-6403 or 1-800-582-3421 The fee for the Plan varies depending on the number of pages of the Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES
    ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES Tables STEPHEN T. ROSS University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London © 2013 by The Regents of the University of California ISBN 978-0-520-24945-5 uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 1 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 2 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 1.1 Families Composing 95% of North American Freshwater Fish Species Ranked by the Number of Native Species Number Cumulative Family of species percent Cyprinidae 297 28 Percidae 186 45 Catostomidae 71 51 Poeciliidae 69 58 Ictaluridae 46 62 Goodeidae 45 66 Atherinopsidae 39 70 Salmonidae 38 74 Cyprinodontidae 35 77 Fundulidae 34 80 Centrarchidae 31 83 Cottidae 30 86 Petromyzontidae 21 88 Cichlidae 16 89 Clupeidae 10 90 Eleotridae 10 91 Acipenseridae 8 92 Osmeridae 6 92 Elassomatidae 6 93 Gobiidae 6 93 Amblyopsidae 6 94 Pimelodidae 6 94 Gasterosteidae 5 95 source: Compiled primarily from Mayden (1992), Nelson et al. (2004), and Miller and Norris (2005). uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 3 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 3.1 Biogeographic Relationships of Species from a Sample of Fishes from the Ouachita River, Arkansas, at the Confl uence with the Little Missouri River (Ross, pers. observ.) Origin/ Pre- Pleistocene Taxa distribution Source Highland Stoneroller, Campostoma spadiceum 2 Mayden 1987a; Blum et al. 2008; Cashner et al. 2010 Blacktail Shiner, Cyprinella venusta 3 Mayden 1987a Steelcolor Shiner, Cyprinella whipplei 1 Mayden 1987a Redfi n Shiner, Lythrurus umbratilis 4 Mayden 1987a Bigeye Shiner, Notropis boops 1 Wiley and Mayden 1985; Mayden 1987a Bullhead Minnow, Pimephales vigilax 4 Mayden 1987a Mountain Madtom, Noturus eleutherus 2a Mayden 1985, 1987a Creole Darter, Etheostoma collettei 2a Mayden 1985 Orangebelly Darter, Etheostoma radiosum 2a Page 1983; Mayden 1985, 1987a Speckled Darter, Etheostoma stigmaeum 3 Page 1983; Simon 1997 Redspot Darter, Etheostoma artesiae 3 Mayden 1985; Piller et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered and Threatened Animals of Utah
    Endangered and Threatened Animals of Utah Quinney Professorship for Wildlife Conflict Management Jack H. Berryman Institute U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources Utah State University Extension Service Endangered and Threatened Animals of Utah 1998 Acknowledgments This publication was produced by Utah State University Extension Service Department of Fisheries and Wildlife The Jack H. Berryman Institute Utah Division of Wildlife U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Extension and Publications Contributing Authors Purpose and Introduction Terry Messmer Marilet Zablan Mammals Boyde Blackwell Athena Menses Birds Frank Howe Fishes Leo Lentsch Terry Messmer Richard Drake Reptiles and Invertebrates Terry Messmer Richard Drake Utah Sensitive Species List Frank Howe Editors Terry Messmer Richard Drake Audrey McElrone Publication Publication Assistance by Remani Rajagopal Layout and design by Gail Christensen USU Publication Design and Production Quinney Professorship for Wildlife Conflict Management This bulletin was developed under the auspices of the Quinney Professorship for Wildlife Conflict Management through the sponsorship of the S. J. and Jessie E. Quinney Foundation in partnership with the College of Natural Resources, Jack H. Berryman Institute for Wild- life Damage Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. i Contents Purpose of this Guide . iii Introduction . v What are endangered and threatened species? . vi Why some species become endangered or threatened? . vi Why protect endangered species? . vi The Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) . viii Mammals Black-footed Ferret . 1 Grizzly Bear . 5 Gray Wolf . 9 Utah Prairie Dog . 13 Birds Bald Eagle .
    [Show full text]
  • Parker Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan
    Parker Fisheries Resource Office Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan Little Colorado River Spinedace Lepidomeda vittata Recovery Plan prepared by: C. 0. Minckley U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Parker Fishery Resource Office, Parker, Arizona 85344 October 1997 for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico Approved: ~~~ector Regi Date: r~IAN 09 1998 Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions believed necessary to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available, subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the stakeholders involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approvals ofany individuals or agencies (involved in the plan formulation), other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position ofthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion ofrecovery tasks. Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan LITERATURE CITATION U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Little Colorado River spinedace, Lepido-meda vittata Recovery Plan. Albuquerque NM. 51 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service: 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 301/492-6403 or 800/582-3421 Fees charged for Recovery Plans vary depending on the number of Plans requested.
    [Show full text]
  • Defining Conservation Priorities for Freshwater Fishes According To
    Ecological Applications, 21(8), 2011, pp. 3002–3013 Ó 2011 by the Ecological Society of America Defining conservation priorities for freshwater fishes according to taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity 1,4 1 2 3 ANGELA L. STRECKER, JULIAN D. OLDEN, JOANNA B. WHITTIER, AND CRAIG P. PAUKERT 1School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98105 USA 2Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211 USA 3U.S. Geological Survey, Missouri Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211 USA Abstract. To date, the predominant use of systematic conservation planning has been to evaluate and conserve areas of high terrestrial biodiversity. Although studies in freshwater ecosystems have received recent attention, research has rarely considered the potential trade- offs between protecting different dimensions of biodiversity and the ecological processes that maintain diversity. We provide the first systematic prioritization for freshwaters (focusing on the highly threatened and globally distinct fish fauna of the Lower Colorado River Basin, USA) simultaneously considering scenarios of: taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity; contemporary threats to biodiversity (including interactions with nonnative species); and future climate change and human population growth. There was 75% congruence between areas of highest conservation priority for different aspects of biodiversity, suggesting that conservation efforts can concurrently achieve strong complementarity among all types of diversity. However, sizable fractions of the landscape were incongruent across conservation priorities for different diversity scenarios, underscoring the importance of considering multiple dimensions of biodiversity and highlighting catchments that contribute disproportionately to taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Teleostei: Cyprinidae) from Cytochrome B Sequences
    Copeia, 2002(3), pp. 665±678 Evolutionary Relationships of the Plagopterins (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) from Cytochrome b Sequences THOMAS E. DOWLING,C.ALANA TIBBETS,W.L.MINCKLEY, AND GERALD R. SMITH Sequences of cytochrome b (cytb) were used to examine composition and phylo- genetic relationships of cyprinid ®shes of the tribe Plagopterini, endemic to the Great Basin and Lower Colorado River in southwestern North America. The pla- gopterin genera, Lepidomeda, Meda, Plagopterus, and Snyderichthys, were most closely af®liated with the chubs Couesius and Margariscus of northern and eastern North America. As indicated by previous morphologic, allozymic, and mtDNA studies, Sny- derichthys is intimately related to Lepidomeda. The relationship is paraphyletic, how- ever, according to our molecular data. Snyderichthys from the Snake and Bear River drainages are part of a clade that includes Lepidomeda mollispinis and Lepidomeda albivallis according to the cytb sequence, with Snyderichthys from the central and southern Bonneville basin more divergent. This paraphyly and the complex geo- graphic relationships of mtDNA sequences indicate a complex history of the group and cast doubt on the validity of morphologically diagnosed Snyderichthys. Estimates of divergence time, based on a combination of fossil and molecular data, indicate that the plagopterins are an ancient clade, at least 17 million years old. HE Cyprinidae or minnows are the most di- They hypothesized existence of three major T verse freshwater ®sh family in North Amer- groups: ``shiner,'' ``chub,'' and ``western'' ica, represented by more than 300 species in clades. Plagopterins fell within a Gila clade of approximately 50 genera (Burr and Mayden, western minnows, most closely related to a clade 1992).
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes As a Template for Reticulate Evolution
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 12-2016 Fishes as a Template for Reticulate Evolution: A Case Study Involving Catostomus in the Colorado River Basin of Western North America Max Russell Bangs University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Evolution Commons, Molecular Biology Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Bangs, Max Russell, "Fishes as a Template for Reticulate Evolution: A Case Study Involving Catostomus in the Colorado River Basin of Western North America" (2016). Theses and Dissertations. 1847. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/1847 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Fishes as a Template for Reticulate Evolution: A Case Study Involving Catostomus in the Colorado River Basin of Western North America A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Biology by Max Russell Bangs University of South Carolina Bachelor of Science in Biological Sciences, 2009 University of South Carolina Master of Science in Integrative Biology, 2011 December 2016 University of Arkansas This dissertation is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. _____________________________________ Dr. Michael E. Douglas Dissertation Director _____________________________________ ____________________________________ Dr. Marlis R. Douglas Dr. Andrew J. Alverson Dissertation Co-Director Committee Member _____________________________________ Dr. Thomas F. Turner Ex-Officio Member Abstract Hybridization is neither simplistic nor phylogenetically constrained, and post hoc introgression can have profound evolutionary effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishtraits: a Database on Ecological and Life-History Traits of Freshwater
    FishTraits database Traits References Allen, D. M., W. S. Johnson, and V. Ogburn-Matthews. 1995. Trophic relationships and seasonal utilization of saltmarsh creeks by zooplanktivorous fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 42(1)37-50. [multiple species] Anderson, K. A., P. M. Rosenblum, and B. G. Whiteside. 1998. Controlled spawning of Longnose darters. The Progressive Fish-Culturist 60:137-145. [678] Barber, W. E., D. C. Williams, and W. L. Minckley. 1970. Biology of the Gila Spikedace, Meda fulgida, in Arizona. Copeia 1970(1):9-18. [485] Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. Belk, M. C., J. B. Johnson, K. W. Wilson, M. E. Smith, and D. D. Houston. 2005. Variation in intrinsic individual growth rate among populations of leatherside chub (Snyderichthys copei Jordan & Gilbert): adaptation to temperature or length of growing season? Ecology of Freshwater Fish 14:177-184. [349] Bonner, T. H., J. M. Watson, and C. S. Williams. 2006. Threatened fishes of the world: Cyprinella proserpina Girard, 1857 (Cyprinidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes. In Press. [133] Bonnevier, K., K. Lindstrom, and C. St. Mary. 2003. Parental care and mate attraction in the Florida flagfish, Jordanella floridae. Behavorial Ecology and Sociobiology 53:358-363. [410] Bortone, S. A. 1989. Notropis melanostomus, a new speices of Cyprinid fish from the Blackwater-Yellow River drainage of northwest Florida. Copeia 1989(3):737-741. [575] Boschung, H.T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books, Washington. [multiple species] 1 FishTraits database Breder, C. M., and D. E. Rosen. 1966. Modes of reproduction in fishes.
    [Show full text]
  • Red Gap Ranch Biological Resource Evaluation
    RED GAP RANCH BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION Prepared for: Southwest Ground-water Consultants, Inc. Prepared by: WestLand Resources, Inc. Date: February 14, 2014 Project No.: 1822.01 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................ 1 2. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................... 2 2.1. Approach ...................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2. Physical Environment ................................................................................................................... 2 2.3. Biological Environment and Resources ....................................................................................... 3 3. SCREENING ANALYSIS FOR SPECIES OF CONCERN ................................................................ 5 3.1. Approach ...................................................................................................................................... 5 3.2. Screening Analysis Results .......................................................................................................... 7 3.2.1. USFWS-listed Species ...................................................................................................... 7 3.2.2. USFS Coconino National Forest Sensitive Species ........................................................ 15 3.2.3. USFS Management Indicator Species ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Joseph R. Tomelleri 28 27
    Nevada 29 34 35 32 2 31 30 3 1 33 20 18 6 4 19 5 8 17 16 12 7 23 15 24 9 21 25 22 10 26 14 13 11 41 36 39 40 38 37 Illustrations by JOSEPH R. TOMELLERI 28 27 N A T I V E F I S H E S O F N E V A D A G R O U P IN G S B Y F A M ILY KILLIFISHES ∙ Cyprinodontidae 11. Big Spring spinedace ∙ Lepidomeda mollispinis pratensis† POOLFISHES ∙ Empetrichthyidae 31. Mountain sucker ∙ Catostomus platyrhynchus 1. Devils Hole pupfish ∙ Cyprinodon diabolis* 12. Moapa dace ∙ Moapa coriacea* 22. Preston White River springfish ∙ Crenichthys baileyi albivallis 32. Warner sucker ∙ Catostomus warnerensis† 2. Ash Meadows Amargosa pupfish ∙ Cyprinodon nevadensis mionectes* 13. Woundfin ∙ Plagopterus argentissimus* 23. Hiko White River springfish ∙ Crenichthys baileyi grandis* 33. Wall Canyon sucker ∙ Catostomus sp. 3. Warm Springs Amargosa pupfish ∙ Cyprinodon nevadensis pectoralis* 14. Colorado pikeminnow ∙ Ptychocheilus lucius* 24. Moapa White River springfish ∙ Crenichthys baileyi moapae 34. Cui-ui ∙ Chasmistes cujus* 25. Railroad Valley springfish ∙ Crenichthys nevadae† 35. Razorback sucker ∙ Xyrauchen texanus* MINNOWS ∙ Cyprinidae 15. Northern pikeminnow ∙ Ptychocheilus oregonesis 26. Pahrump poolfish ∙ Empetrichthys latos* 4. Desert dace ∙ Eremichthys acros† 16. Relict dace ∙ Relictus solitarius TROU T S ∙ Salmonidae 17. Moapa speckled dace ∙ Rhinichthys osculus moapae 5. Humpback chub ∙ Gila cypha* S CUL P INS ∙ Cottidae 36. Mountain whitefish ∙ Prosopium williamsoni 18. Ash Meadows speckled dace ∙ Rhinichthys osculus nevadensis* † 6. Bonytail chub ∙ Gila elegans* 27. Mottled sculpin ∙ Cottus bairdii 37. Lahontan cutthroat trout ∙ Onchorhynchus clarkii henshawi 19. White River speckled dace ∙ Rhinichthys osculus ssp.
    [Show full text]
  • Guam Marine Biosecurity Action Plan
    GuamMarine Biosecurity Action Plan September 2014 This Marine Biosecurity Action Plan was prepared by the University of Guam Center for Island Sustainability under award NA11NOS4820007 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coral Reef Conservation Program, as administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management and the Bureau of Statistics and Plans, Guam Coastal Management Program. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Guam Marine Biosecurity Action Plan Author: Roxanna Miller First Released in Fall 2014 About this Document The Guam Marine Biosecurity Plan was created by the University of Guam’s Center for Island Sustainability under award NA11NOS4820007 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coral Reef Conservation Program, as administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management and the Bureau of Statistics and Plans, Guam Coastal Management Program. Information and recommendations within this document came through the collaboration of a variety of both local and federal agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP), the University of Guam (UOG), the Guam Department of Agriculture’s Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (DAWR), the United States Coast Guard (USCG), the Port Authority of Guam, the National Park Service
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Equipment & Supplies
    National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2018/19 Field Operations Manual Version 1.1 April 2018 Appendix A: Equipment & Supplies T & SUPPLIES & T APPENDIX A: EQUIPMEN A: APPENDIX A-1 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2018/19 Field Operations Manual Version 1.1 April 2018 T & SUPPLIES & T APPENDIX A: EQUIPMEN A: APPENDIX A-2 National Rivers and Streams Assessment 2018/19 Field Operations Manual Version 1.1 April 2018 Base Kit A Base Kit will be provided to the field crews for all sampling sites that they will go to. Some items are sent in the base kit as extra supplies to be used as needed. Base Kit Item Quantity Protocol Antibiotic Salve 1 Fish Plug Aspirator bulb 1 Fish Plug Beaker (3 L, Nalgene) 1 Water Chemistry Centrifuge tube stand 1 Chlorophyll A Centrifuge tubes (sterile, green screw-top, 50-mL) (10/pack) 1 pack Chlorophyll A Periphyton Chlorophyll bottle (2 L, brown) 1 Chlorophyll A Clinometer† 1 Physical Habitat Compass† 1 Physical Habitat Delimiter – 12 cm2 area 1 Periphyton Densiometer - Convex spherical (modified with taped V)† 1 Physical Habitat D-frame Kick Net (500 µm mesh, 52” handle) † 1 Benthics Dry ice label (Class 9)* 5 Shipping Electrical tape - roll* 1 General FedEx labels, 5 sets of each in file folder (T1, T2, T3, T5)* 1 Shipping Filtration chamber adapter 3 Enterococci, Chlorophyll A, Periphyton Filtration flask 1 Enterococci, Chlorophyll A, Periphyton Filtration flask stopper (silicone, blue) 2 Enterococci, Chlorophyll A, Periphyton Filtration unit (sterile 250 ml funnel, cap and filter holder) - spares 5 Enterococci,
    [Show full text]