DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) Proposed Recommendation for the Reallocation of Non-Indian Agricultural Water within the Central Arizona Project System, in Accordance with the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation June 2016 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES RECOMMENDATION FOR THE REALLOCATION OF NON-INDIAN AGRICULTURAL PRIORITY CENTRAL ARIZONA PROJECT WATER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ARIZONA WATER SETTLEMENTS ACT OF 2004 PREPARED FOR U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION PREPARED BY ERO RESOURCES CORPORATION DENVER, COLORADO www.eroresources.com JUNE 2016 Mission Statements The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Defined Terms ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources AFA acre-feet annually AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department AMA Active Management Area Apache Junction WUCFD Apache Junction Water Utilities Community Facilities District ASM Arizona State Museum ASU Arizona State University AWSA Arizona Water Settlements Act BA Biological Assessment BCPA Boulder Canyon Project Act BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs BLM Bureau of Land Management bls below land surface CAGRD Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District CAIDD Central Arizona Irrigation and Drainage District CAP Central Arizona Project CAWCD Central Arizona Water Conservation District CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH Critical Habitat Code Groundwater Code Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CWA Clean Water Act Decree 1964 Arizona v. California decree DSI demand and supply imbalance EA Environmental Assessment EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended ESRV East Salt River Valley FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FR Federal Register FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service GSF groundwater savings facilities IDD Irrigation and Drainage District INA Irrigation Non-Expansion Area ITAs Indian Trust Assets Listed species federally listed species under the ESA, as amended LTSC long-term storage credits MAFA million acre-feet annually M&I municipal and industrial MDWID Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District MHI median household income i MCL maximum contaminant level MSIDD Maricopa Stanfield Irrigation and Drainage District NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NIA Non-Indian Agricultural NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS National Park Service National Register National Register of Historic Places P.L. Public Law Proposed Action Secretary approval of Water Reallocation Recommendation Proposed Recipients municipal and industrial water users recommended by ADWR for water reallocations Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation ROD Record of Decision Secretary Secretary of the Interior SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SMCL secondary maximum contaminant level USC United States Code USF underground storage facility USFS U.S. Forest Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey WRDC Water Resources Development Commission WSRV West Salt River Valley ii CONTENTS Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Defined Terms ................................................................... i 1.0 Purpose and Need...................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................1 1.2 Background Summary ......................................................................................1 1.2.1 History of Water Supply and Demand for Two Water Sources within Arizona ......................................................................................2 1.2.2 Central Arizona Project ........................................................................6 1.2.3 ADWR’s Reallocation Recommendation Process ................................7 1.3 Purpose and Need ...........................................................................................10 1.3.1 Purpose of the Project.........................................................................10 1.3.2 Need for the Project ............................................................................12 1.4 Public Involvement and Scoping ....................................................................12 2.0 Description of Alternatives ..................................................................................... 13 2.1 Project Area ....................................................................................................13 2.1.1 Active Management Areas (AMAs)...................................................13 2.2 Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives ...................................................13 2.3 No Action (Rejection of the ADWR Recommendation) ................................13 2.4 Proposed Action (Approval of Proposed Reallocation Recommendation)...........................................................................................14 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...................................... 16 3.1 Potential Connected Actions ...........................................................................16 3.2 Background for Cumulative Effects ...............................................................18 3.2.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...............18 3.3 Land Use.........................................................................................................21 3.3.1 Analysis Area......................................................................................21 3.3.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................22 3.3.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................25 3.3.4 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................25 3.4 Biological Resources ......................................................................................26 3.4.1 Analysis Area......................................................................................26 3.4.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................26 3.4.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................33 3.4.4 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................34 3.5 Cultural Resources..........................................................................................35 3.5.1 Analysis Area......................................................................................35 3.5.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................35 3.5.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................36 3.5.4 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................37 3.6 Water Resources .............................................................................................37 3.6.1 Analysis Area......................................................................................37 3.6.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................37 3.6.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................47 iii 3.6.4 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................49 3.7 Socioeconomic Resources ..............................................................................50 3.7.1 Analysis Area......................................................................................50 3.7.2 Affected Environment ........................................................................51 3.7.3 Environmental Consequences .............................................................57 3.7.4 Cumulative Effects .............................................................................59 3.8 Resources Considered But Not Affected........................................................59 4.0 Environmental Laws and Directives Considered .................................................... 60 4.1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (P.L. 91-190) .......60 4.2 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (P.L. 85-624)..........................60 4.3 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) (P.L. 93-205) ..................................60 4.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-542)........................................60 4.5 Wilderness Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-577, as amended).......................................61 4.6 Clean Water Act (CWA) (P.L. 92-500, as amended) .....................................61 4.7 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (P.L. 89-665, as amended by P.L. 96-515) ...............................................................................................61 4.8 Farmland Protection Policy Act (P.L. 97-98).................................................62 4.9 Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) ........................................62
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix C HYDROLOGIC REPORT on the PHOENIX
    CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix C HYDROLOGIC REPORT ON THE PHOENIX AMA Prepared for: United States Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation Prepared by: Brown and Caldwell 201 East Washington Street, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Brown and Caldwell Project No. 23481.001 C-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2 LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4 2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ....................................................................................................... 5 3.0 GENERALIZED GEOLOGY ............................................................................................ 6 3.1 BEDROCK GEOLOGY ......................................................................................... 6 3.2 BASIN GEOLOGY ................................................................................................ 6 4.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ................................................................................ 9 4.1 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vita - Stephen J
    Curriculum Vita - Stephen J. Reynolds School of Earth and Space Exploration, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85287-1404 (480) 965-9049 (work) Website: http://reynolds.asu.edu email: [email protected] Degrees/Registration University of Texas, El Paso: B.S., Geology, 1974 University of Arizona: M.S., Geosciences, 1977, Ph.D., Geosciences,1982 Arizona Registered Geologist #26773 (1993-present) Recent Professional Experience Arizona State University, Dept. of Geology: Professor (6/97 to present), Associate Professor (8/91 to 6/97). Teaching responsibilities include Advanced Geologic Field Mapping, Advanced Structural Geology, Applied Arizona Geology, Cordilleran Regional Geology, Geology of Arizona, Geotectonics, Introductory Geology, Orogenic Systems, Summer Field Geology, Methods of Geoscience Teaching ASU Center for Research on Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology, Associate Director (6/99 to present); chairman of founding committee. Arizona Geological Survey and Arizona Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology: Research Geologist (6/88 to 7/91), Associate Research Geologist (6/87 to 6/88); Assistant Research Geologist (2/81 to 6/87). University of Arizona, Dept. of Geosciences: Visiting Associate Professor, (1991 to ~1997); Adjunct Associate Research Scientist (1987 to 1991); Research Associate and Assistant (1/75 to 12/80); Teaching Assistant (8/74 to 7/75) Geologist and Consulting Geologist: Clients include Animas Resources (2007 to present), Pediment Exploration, Ltd. (2007 to present), Clear Creek
    [Show full text]
  • Mineral Resources of the Harquahala Mountains Wilderness Study Area, La Paz and Maricopa Counties, Arizona
    2.SOB nH in ntoiOGIGM. JAN 3 1 1989 Mineral Resources of the Harquahala Mountains Wilderness Study Area, La Paz and Maricopa Counties, Arizona U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1701-C Chapter C Mineral Resources of the Harquahala Mountains Wilderness Study Area, La Paz and Maricopa Counties, Arizona By ED DE WITT, S.M. RICHARD, J.R. HASSEMER, and W.F. HANNA U.S. Geological Survey J.R. THOMPSON U.S. Bureau of Mines U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1701 MINERAL RESOURCES OF WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS- WEST-CENTRAL ARIZONA AND PART OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L Peck, Director UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1988 For sale by the Books and Open-File Reports Section U.S. Geological Survey Federal Center Box 25425 Denver, CO 80225 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publlcatlon Data Mineral resources of the Harquahala Mountains wilderness study area, La Paz and Maricopa counties, Arizona. (Mineral resources of wilderness study areas west-central Arizona and part of San Bernardino County, California ; ch. C) (U.S. Geological Survey bulletin ; 1701-C) Bibliography: p. Supt. of Docs, no.: I 19.3:1701-C 1. Mines and mineral resources Arizona Harquahala Mountains Wilderness. 2. Harquahala Mountains (Ariz.) I. DeWitt, Ed. II. Series. III. Series: U.S. Geological Survey bulletin ; 1701. QE75.B9 no. 1701-C 557.3 s [553'.09791'72] 88-600012 [TN24.A6] STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS Bureau of Land Management Wilderness Study Areas The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (Public Law 94-579, October 21, 1976) requires the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Maricopa County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2012
    The Maricopa County Wildlife Connectivity Assessment: Report on Stakeholder Input January 2012 (Photographs: Arizona Game and Fish Department) Arizona Game and Fish Department In partnership with the Arizona Wildlife Linkages Workgroup TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................ i RECOMMENDED CITATION ........................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................................. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ iii DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................ iv BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 1 THE MARICOPA COUNTY WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY ASSESSMENT ................................... 8 HOW TO USE THIS REPORT AND ASSOCIATED GIS DATA ................................................... 10 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 12 MASTER LIST OF WILDLIFE LINKAGES AND HABITAT BLOCKSAND BARRIERS ................ 16 REFERENCE MAPS .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan
    Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan Adopted August 16, 2004 Maricopa Trail Maricopa County Trail Commission Maricopa County Department of Transportation Maricopa County Parks and Recreation Maricopa County Planning and Development Flood Control District of Maricopa County We have an obligation to protect open spaces for future generations. Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan VISION Our vision is to connect the majestic open spaces of the Maricopa County Regional Parks with a nonmotorized trail system. The Maricopa Trail Maricopa County Regional Trail System Plan - page 1 Credits Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Andrew Kunasek, District 3, Chairman Fulton Brock, District 1 Don Stapley, District 2 Max Wilson, District 4 Mary Rose Wilcox, District 5 Maricopa County Trail Commission Supervisor Max Wilson, District 4 Chairman Supervisor Andrew Kunasek, District 3 Parks Commission Members: Citizen Members: Laurel Arndt, Chair Art Wirtz, District 2 Randy Virden, Vice-Chair Jim Burke, District 3 Felipe Zubia, District 5 Stakeholders: Carol Erwin, Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) Fred Pfeifer, Arizona Public Service (APS) James Duncan, Salt River Project (SRP) Teri Raml, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Ex-officio Members: William Scalzo, Chief Community Services Officer Pictured from left to right Laurel Arndt, Supervisor Andy Kunasek, Fred Pfeifer, Carol Erwin, Arizona’s Official State Historian, Marshall Trimble, and Art Wirtz pose with the commemorative branded trail marker Mike Ellegood, Director, Public Works at the Maricopa Trail
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Public Service Sun Valley to Morgan 500/230 Kilovolt
    TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1.1 General Setting of Project Area .............................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Resource Values and Uses Brought Forward for Analysis ..................... 3-1 3.1.3 Analysis Area ......................................................................................... 3-2 3.2 Air Quality and Climate Change ......................................................................... 3-2 3.2.1 Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards ..................................... 3-3 3.2.1.1 State and Local Air Quality Regulations ................................. 3-3 3.2.1.2 Federal Rules ......................................................................... 3-5 3.2.2 Study Area .............................................................................................. 3-7 3.2.3 Study Area Overview .............................................................................. 3-8 3.2.4 Existing Air and Climate Quality ............................................................. 3-8 3.2.4.1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................. 3-8 3.2.4.2 Clean Air Act Attainment Status ........................................... 3-11 3.2.5 Climate Change .................................................................................... 3-12 3.2.5.1
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Mapping in the Hieroglyphic and Wickenburg Mountains in Yavapai and Maricopa Counties; Partial Support Was Provided by the U.S
    I .. Annual Report '- Arizona Geological Survey * ,-- I I L Fiscal Year 1986 - 1987 (July 1, 1986-June 30, 1987) ARIZONA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OPEN·FILE REPORT 1I..- 87-13 , Cover Illustration: earth fissures formed in response L to ground-water withdrawal near Chandler Heights; artwork by Peter F. Corrao. L * The Arizona Geological Survey is the Geological Survey Branch of the Bureau of Geology and Mineral Technology, a Division of the University of Arizona, Tucson. This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Arizona Geological Survey standards Highlights • Provided information or assistance to more than 3,200 persons who visited the office, telephoned, or wrote; sold publications totalling $19,431. • Completed 36 geologic maps and reports; presented 9 technical papers and talks and gave 10 non-technical talks; conducted or participated in 5 workshops or field trips. • Published map showing land subsidence and earth-fissure zones; project was done cooperatively with the u.s. Geological Survey, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and the Arizona Departments of Water Resources and Transportation. • Assisted Pima County Health Department in investigating potential indoor radon occurrences in southwestern Tucson by determining location and natural radioactivity levels of a uranium-bearing limestone. • Assisted Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency in planning a statewide indoor radon survey by providing information about the distribution of rocks that contain elevated uranium content. • Assisted State Land Department in minerals ownership exchanges by assessing potential for mineral resources in specified areas. Published bibliographies of metallic mineral districts • for Yuma, La Paz, Mohave, Pima, and Santa Cruz Counties. • Completed detailed geologic mapping in the Hieroglyphic and Wickenburg Mountains in Yavapai and Maricopa Counties; partial support was provided by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Geochronology, Geology, and Listric Normal Faulting of the Vulture Mountains, Maricopa County, Arizona
    Arizona Geological Society Digest, Volume XII, 1980 89 Geochronology, Geology, and Listric Normal Faulting of the Vulture Mountains, Maricopa County, Arizona by WA. Rehrigi, M. Shafiqullah2, and P.E. Damon2 Abstract Geologic mapping and geochronologic studies in the Vulture Mountains near Wickenburg, Arizona, have led to the recognition of a large, northeast-trending batholith of 68.4-m.y. age that intrudes complex gneissic and granitic rocks of probably Precambrian age. Over- lying the denuded crystalline terrane is a sequence of late Oligocene to Miocene ( .'26 to 16 m.y.) volcanic rocks (vitrophyres, ash-flow tuffs, welded tuffs, breccias, agglomerates, and lava flows) that vary locally. Nearby source areas are suggested. A swarm of north- to north-northwest-trending porphyritic dikes intrudes the volcanics and crystalline basement. Overlying this volcanic sequence in angular unconformity is a thin section of basal conglom- erate and basalt lava flows dated at 13.5 m.y. B.P. The older, tuffaceous sequence is generally calc-alkalic but with a high proportion of rhyolites that are exceptionally rich in potassium and silica. These silicic units are peral- kaline or nearly so, and those with K20/Na2O >3 are ultrapotassic. Initial strontium ratios average 0.7081, whereas an initial ratio for the younger basalt sequence is significantly lower at 0.7054. The silicic volcanics have been severely tilted on multiple, low-angle listric normal faults. The youngest basalt flows are relatively flat lying and postdate this deformation. By geo- logic and radiometric criteria, the transition from tilted silicic volcanics to untilted basalts occurred between about 16 and 14 m.y.
    [Show full text]
  • Detailed Geologic Map and Cross Sections of the Big Horn And
    GEOLOGIC MAP AND CROSS SECTIONS OF THE BIG HORN AND BELMONT MOUNTAINS, WEST-CENTRAL ARIZONA James A. Stin1ac, Stephen M. Richard, Stephen J. Reynolds, Richard C. Capps, Curtis P. Kortel11eier, Michael J. Grubensky, George B. Allen, Floyd Gray, and Robert J. Miller Open-File Report 94-15 ARIZONA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY TUCSON, ARIZONA NOVEIVIBER, 1994 This report is preliminary and lias not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Arizona Geological Survey standards INTRODUCTION The principal geologic feature of the Big Hom and Belmont Mountains is a complexly faulted and tilted series of mostly Miocene volcanic rock that record a period of Middle Tertiary magmatism and extension. These volcanic rocks vary widely in composition, but basaltic and rhyolitic rocks are most abundant (Figure 1). Intrusive equivalents of these volcanics exposed in the Belmont Mountains are dominantly granitic. Despite the large volume of rhyolite erupted, small, coalescing flow and dome complexes were formed in preference to large- MIocene and Oligocene sandstone and conglomerate Hot Rock basalt Burnt Mountain volcanics Big Horn volcanics Intrusive rocks pre-Tertiary rocks I~ ,:- ; ~ _I Big Horn granodiorite (Cretaceous) ~ Igneous and metamorpchic rocks ~ (Proterozoic through Mesozoic) Figure 1. Generalized lithologic map of the Big Hom and Belmont Mountains volume ash-flow tuffs, and no collapse calderas were formed. These rocks lie in the upper plate ofthe regional Whipple-Buckskin-Bullard detachment fault [Rehrig and Reynolds, 1980], at its southeastern tip [Richard et aI, 1990a]. A regional boundary between major tilts domains in Tertiary strata follows an irregular course from northwest to southeast through the range [Rehrig et aI., 1980].
    [Show full text]
  • Riparian Ecosystems and Their Management: Reconciling
    This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Errors identified by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. Xeroriparian Systems Used by Desert Mule Deer in Texas And Arizona1 Paul R. Krausman2 , Kurt R. Rautenstrauch3 and Bruce D. Leopold4 Abstract.--We examined desert mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus crooki) occurrance in xeroriparian systems in Arizona and Texas. Most deer in Arizona were located in washes. Most deer in Texas were located between washes. Xeroriparian areas are important habitat components for desert mule deer when they provide forage, thermal cover and travel lanes. INTRODUCTION STUDY AREAS Desert mule deer inhabit the Sonoran and Desert mule deer use of xeroriparian systems Chihuahuan Deserts of North America. Their range was evaluated on the northeastern edge of their extends from southwest Texas to western Arizona range in Big Bend National Park (BBNP), southwest and south into central Mexico (Wallmo 1981). Texas; in the westcentral part of their range in the Belmont Mountains, central Arizona; and on the Desert mule deer are a popular and important northwestern edge of their range in King Valley, game animal, but have received limited attention southwest Arizona. by the scientific community. Clark (1953) examined desert mule deer behavior and movement BBNP, Brewster Co., is representative of the patterns, Truett (1972) studied their general rugged Chihuahuan Desert and is included in the ecology, Krausman (1978) and Leopold (1984) Chisos biotic district (Dice 1943). Elevations evaluated their forage preferences, and Krausman extend from 573 m along the Rio Grande to 2384 m (1984) and Rautenstrauch and Krausman (unpublished at Mt.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 POST-MINERAL NORMAL FAULTING in ARIZONA PORPHYRY SYSTEMS by Phillip A. Nickerson a Dissertation Submitted To
    1 POST-MINERAL NORMAL FAULTING IN ARIZONA PORPHYRY SYSTEMS By Phillip A. Nickerson _________________ A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCIENCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2012 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Phillip A. Nickerson entitled Post-Mineral Normal Faulting in Arizona Porphyry Systems and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 04/30/2012 Eric Seedorff _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 04/30/2012 Mark Barton _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 04/30/2012 George Davis _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 04/30/2012 Peter Reiners _______________________________________________________________________ Date: 04/30/2012 Charles Ferguson Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement. ________________________________________________ Date: 04/30/2012
    [Show full text]
  • PETITION to LIST the SONORAN DESERT TORTOISE (Gopherus Agassizii) UNDER the U.S
    PETITION TO LIST THE SONORAN DESERT TORTOISE (Gopherus agassizii) UNDER THE U.S. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT Photo courtesy of George Andrejko © In the Office of Endangered Species U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service United States Department of Interior October 9, 2008 Petitioners: WildEarth Guardians Western Watersheds Project 312 Montezuma Ave. P.O. Box 2364 Santa Fe, New Mexico Reseda, California 91337 87501 (818) 345-0425 (505) 988-9126 October 9, 2008 SENT VIA CERTIFIED U.S. POSTAL MAIL Dirk Kempthorne Dale Hall, Director Secretary of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street NW 1849 C Street NW Washington, DC 20240 Washington, DC 20240 Dr. Benjamin Tuggle, Regional Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 1306 Albuquerque, NM 87103 Re: Petition to List the Sonoran Desert Tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act The following petitioners hereby petition for a rule to list the Sonoran desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) as “threatened” or “endangered” under the Endangered Species Act and to designate critical habitat to ensure its recovery (16 U.S.C § 1531 et seq.): • WildEarth Guardians WildEarth Guardians is a regional conservation organization with offices in Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. The mission of WildEarth Guardians is to protect and restore wildlife, wild rivers, and wild places in the American West. • Western Watersheds Project Western Watersheds Project is a regional conservation organization with offices in Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Utah, and Wyoming. The mission of Western Watersheds Project is to protect and restore western watersheds and wildlife habitats through education, scientific study, public policy initiatives, and litigation.
    [Show full text]