DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Assessment for the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Assessment for the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan October 2016 Final Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX O: BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE GLEN CANYON DAM LONG-TERM EXPERIMENTAL AND MANAGEMENT PLAN O-1 Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan October 2016 Final Environmental Impact Statement This page intentionally left blank O-2 Biological Assessment for the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) U.S. Department of the Interior August 2016 Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan October 2016 Final Environmental Impact Statement O-4 Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan October 2016 Final Environmental Impact Statement CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................. ix 1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 1 1.1 Synopsis of the Proposed Action .............................................................................. 3 1.2 Description of the Federal Action ............................................................................. 4 1.2.1 Regulatory Context....................................................................................... 4 1.2.2 Action Area .................................................................................................. 5 1.2.3 Project Description ....................................................................................... 6 1.2.4 Conservation Measures ................................................................................ 10 1.2.4.1 Humpback Chub ............................................................................ 10 1.2.4.2 Razorback Sucker .......................................................................... 12 1.2.4.3 Nonnative Species – Removal and Control Actions ..................... 13 1.2.4.4 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Yuma Ridgway’s Rail ....... 14 1.2.5 Base Operations ............................................................................................ 15 1.2.6 Operational Flexibility ................................................................................. 15 1.2.7 Implementation of Experimental Elements .................................................. 18 1.2.8 Overall Implementation Process for Experiments ........................................ 18 1.2.9 Sediment-Related Experimental Treatments ................................................ 24 1.2.9.1 Sediment-Triggered Spring HFEs ................................................. 26 1.2.9.2 Proactive Spring HFEs .................................................................. 27 1.2.9.3 Sediment-Triggered Fall HFEs ..................................................... 28 1.2.9.4 Extended-Duration Fall HFEs ....................................................... 28 1.2.10 Aquatic Resource-Related Experimental Treatments .................................. 30 1.2.10.1 Trout Management Flows ............................................................. 31 1.2.10.2 Tier 1 Conservation Actions for Humpback Chub ........................ 34 1.2.10.3 Tier 2 Mechanical Removal of Nonnative Fish ............................ 35 1.2.10.4 Low Summer Flows ...................................................................... 36 1.2.10.5 Low Steady Weekend Flows for Macroinvertebrate Production ..................................................................................... 40 1.2.11 Native and Nonnative Plant Management and Experimental Actions ......... 41 2 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ....................................................................................... 43 2.1 Description of Species Identified for Analysis ......................................................... 43 2.1.1 Kanab Ambersnail ........................................................................................ 43 2.1.1.1 Legal Status ................................................................................... 43 2.1.1.2 Recovery Goals and Status ............................................................ 43 2.1.1.3 Historic and Current Range ........................................................... 44 2.1.1.4 Habitat ........................................................................................... 44 2.1.1.5 Life History ................................................................................... 44 2.1.2 Humpback Chub ........................................................................................... 45 2.1.2.1 Legal Status ................................................................................... 45 2.1.2.2 Recovery Goals and Status ............................................................ 45 iii O-5 Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan October 2016 Final Environmental Impact Statement CONTENTS (Cont.) 2.1.2.3 Historic and Current Range ........................................................... 47 2.1.2.4 Population within the Action Area ................................................ 48 2.1.2.5 Habitat ........................................................................................... 52 2.1.2.6 Life History ................................................................................... 55 2.1.2.7 Factors Affecting Distribution and Abundance in the Grand Canyon ............................................................................... 57 2.1.3 Razorback Sucker ......................................................................................... 60 2.1.3.1 Legal Status ................................................................................... 60 2.1.3.2 Recovery Goals and Status ............................................................ 61 2.1.3.3 Historic and Current Range ........................................................... 61 2.1.3.4 Population within the Action Area ................................................ 63 2.1.3.5 Habitat ........................................................................................... 64 2.1.3.6 Life History ................................................................................... 64 2.1.3.7 Factors Affecting Distribution and Abundance in the Grand Canyon ............................................................................... 65 2.1.4 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher ................................................................. 68 2.1.4.1 Legal Status ................................................................................... 68 2.1.4.2 Recovery Goals and Status ............................................................ 68 2.1.4.3 Historic and Current Range ........................................................... 68 2.1.4.4 Population within the Action Area ................................................ 69 2.1.4.5 Lees Ferry to Diamond Creek ....................................................... 70 2.1.4.6 Lower Grand Canyon .................................................................... 70 2.1.4.7 Life History and Habitat ................................................................ 71 2.1.4.8 Factors Affecting Distribution and Abundance in the Grand Canyon ............................................................................... 72 2.1.5 Yuma Ridgway’s Rail .................................................................................. 72 2.1.5.1 Legal Status ................................................................................... 72 2.1.5.2 Recovery Goals and Status ............................................................ 73 2.1.5.3 Historic and Current Range ........................................................... 73 2.1.5.4 Population within the Action Area ................................................ 73 2.1.5.5 Habitat and Life History ................................................................ 74 2.1.5.6 Factors Affecting Distribution and Abundance in the Grand Canyon ............................................................................... 75 2.2 Baseline Take Resulting from Handling and GCDAMP Research ........................... 75 2.2.1 Humpback Chub ........................................................................................... 75 2.2.2 Razorback Sucker ......................................................................................... 76 3 EFFECTS ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................. 77 3.1 Effects of the Proposed Action on Kanab Ambersnail ............................................. 77 3.1.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ........................................................................... 77 3.1.1.1 Effects of Sediment-Related Experiments .................................... 77 3.1.1.2 Effects of Vegetation Management ............................................... 78 iv O-6 Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan October 2016 Final Environmental Impact Statement CONTENTS (Cont.) 3.1.1.3 Effects of Climate Change ............................................................ 78 3.2 Effects of the Proposed Action on Humpback Chub ................................................ 78 3.2.1 Direct and Indirect Effects ........................................................................... 79 3.2.1.1 Effects of Base Operations ............................................................ 79 3.2.1.2 Effects of Dam Operational Flexibility ......................................... 82 3.2.1.3 Overall Implementation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017
    Washington Natural Heritage Program List of Animal Species with Ranks October 2017 The following list of animals known from Washington is complete for resident and transient vertebrates and several groups of invertebrates, including odonates, branchipods, tiger beetles, butterflies, gastropods, freshwater bivalves and bumble bees. Some species from other groups are included, especially where there are conservation concerns. Among these are the Palouse giant earthworm, a few moths and some of our mayflies and grasshoppers. Currently 857 vertebrate and 1,100 invertebrate taxa are included. Conservation status, in the form of range-wide, national and state ranks are assigned to each taxon. Information on species range and distribution, number of individuals, population trends and threats is collected into a ranking form, analyzed, and used to assign ranks. Ranks are updated periodically, as new information is collected. We welcome new information for any species on our list. Common Name Scientific Name Class Global Rank State Rank State Status Federal Status Northwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Amphibia G5 S5 Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Amphibia G5 S5 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Amphibia G5 S3 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii Amphibia G5 S5 Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Amphibia G4 S3 C Larch Mountain Salamander Plethodon larselli Amphibia G3 S3 S Van Dyke's Salamander Plethodon vandykei Amphibia G3 S3 C Western Red-backed Salamander Plethodon vehiculum Amphibia G5 S5 Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Conference Opinions Glen Canyon
    United States DeDanment... of Lh.e Interior Fish and Wildlife Se:vice Arizona EcJlogic:l1 Se..-.rices Field Office 2:321 w. Roy.I P::.1.r:l Road. Suite 103 Ph.oeni:::. ArizoC!.2. 85021-:'9S1 • [n Reply R.efC" To: (602) 640-2:7"-0 M..::; (602) 640-ZT.!Q ABSO/SE 2-21-93-F-167 February 16, 1996 MEM:ORAND illvf TO: Regional Director, Bureau of Reciamation. Salt La.1ce Cicy, Utah FRO~!: Field Supervisor SUBJECT: Biological and Conference Opinions on OpeT:arion of Glen Canyon Dam ­ Conrrolled Rele3.Se for Habitat and Beach Building (Your Refere:lce UC-320, aN-l.OO) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the Bureau of Reclamation's proposed. test of beachlhabir:at-building flow (rest flow) from Glen Canyon Dam. in spring 1996 in the CoLorado Rivet: located in Coconino County, Arizona. Your November 20, 1995, request for formal consultation was received on November 21, 1995. This doc..uneru: represents the Service's biological and conference opinions on the effects of that action on the following endangered •• species: humpback: chub (Gila cypha); Kanab ambermail (Oxy{oma. haydeni kCJwbensis); and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidon.ax traillii e:xtimus); and on critic:tl habitat for the humpback: chub and proposed. critical habitat for southwes-..ern willow flyC3.!Cher, in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as ame::lde:i, (16 U.S.C. 1531 ec seq.). Tnese biologiCJ..1 and confere~ opinions are based. on information provided in the November 1995 biological assessment.
    [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]
  • Underwater Observation and Habitat Utilization of Three Rare Darters
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 5-2010 Underwater observation and habitat utilization of three rare darters (Etheostoma cinereum, Percina burtoni, and Percina williamsi) in the Little River, Blount County, Tennessee Robert Trenton Jett University of Tennessee - Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Natural Resources and Conservation Commons Recommended Citation Jett, Robert Trenton, "Underwater observation and habitat utilization of three rare darters (Etheostoma cinereum, Percina burtoni, and Percina williamsi) in the Little River, Blount County, Tennessee. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2010. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/636 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Robert Trenton Jett entitled "Underwater observation and habitat utilization of three rare darters (Etheostoma cinereum, Percina burtoni, and Percina williamsi) in the Little River, Blount County, Tennessee." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Wildlife and Fisheries Science. James L. Wilson, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: David A. Etnier, Jason G.
    [Show full text]
  • Affect Space Use by Warpaint Shiners (Luxilus Coccogenis)
    Received: 26 February 2018 | Revised: 16 July 2018 | Accepted: 19 July 2018 DOI: 10.1111/eff.12440 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Stocked rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) affect space use by Warpaint Shiners (Luxilus coccogenis) Duncan Elkins | Nathan P. Nibbelink | Gary D. Grossman Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, Abstract Georgia Due to widespread stocking, Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss Walbaum) are per- Correspondence haps the most widely distributed invasive species in the world. Nonetheless, little is Gary D. Grossman, Warnell School of known about the effects of stocked Rainbow Trout on native non- game species. We Forestry & Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. conducted experiments in an artificial stream to assess the effects of hatchery Email: [email protected] Rainbow Trout on home range and behaviour of Warpaint Shiners (Luxilus coccogenis Funding information Cope), a common minnow frequently found in stocked Southern Appalachian Georgia Department of Natural Resources, streams. We used the LoCoH algorithm to generate polygons describing the home Grant/Award Number: 2021RR272; Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources; ranges used by Warpaint Shiners. When a stocked trout was present Warpaint USDA McIntire-Stennis Program, Grant/ Shiners: (a) increased home range size by 57%, (b) were displaced into higher velocity Award Number: GEOZ-0176-MS Grossman mesohabitats, and (c) reduced mean overlap between the home ranges of individual warpaint shiners. Rainbow Trout did not significantly affect the edge/area ratio of Warpaint Shiner home ranges. Warpaint Shiner density (two and five fish treatments) did not significantly affect any response variable. Displacement from preferred mi- crohabitats and increases in home range size likely result in increased energy ex- penditure and exposure to potential predators (i.e., decreased individual fitness) of Warpaint Shiners when stocked trout are present.
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Biota
    Low Gradient, Cool, Headwaters and Creeks Macrogroup: Headwaters and Creeks Shawsheen River, © John Phelan Ecologist or State Fish Game Agency for more information about this habitat. This map is based on a model and has had little field-checking. Contact your State Natural Heritage Description: Cool, slow-moving, headwaters and creeks of low-moderate elevation flat, marshy settings. These small streams of moderate to low elevations occur on flats or very gentle slopes in watersheds less than 39 sq.mi in size. The cool slow-moving waters may have high turbidity and be somewhat poorly oxygenated. Instream habitats are dominated by glide-pool and ripple-dune systems with runs interspersed by pools and a few short or no distinct riffles. Bed materials are predominenly sands, silt, and only isolated amounts of gravel. These low-gradient streams may have high sinuosity but are usually only slightly entrenched with adjacent Source: 1:100k NHD+ (USGS 2006), >= 1 sq.mi. drainage area floodplain and riparian wetland ecosystems. Cool water State Distribution:CT, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, VA, temperatures in these streams means the fish community WV contains a higher proportion of cool and warm water species relative to coldwater species. Additional variation in the stream Total Habitat (mi): 16,579 biological community is associated with acidic, calcareous, and neutral geologic settings where the pH of the water will limit the % Conserved: 11.5 Unit = Acres of 100m Riparian Buffer distribution of certain macroinvertebrates, plants, and other aquatic biota. The habitat can be further subdivided into 1) State State Miles of Acres Acres Total Acres headwaters that drain watersheds less than 4 sq.mi, and have an Habitat % Habitat GAP 1 - 2 GAP 3 Unsecured average bankfull width of 16 feet or 2) Creeks that include larger NY 41 6830 94 325 4726 streams with watersheds up to 39 sq.mi.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 150/Monday, August 9, 2021
    43470 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 150 / Monday, August 9, 2021 / Proposed Rules How can I get copies of the proposed digital television service, including Federal Communications Commission. action and other related information? propagation characteristics that allow Thomas Horan, EPA has established a docket for this undesired signals and noise to be Chief of Staff, Media Bureau. receivable at relatively far distances and action under Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– Proposed Rule OAR–2021–0208. EPA has also nearby electrical devices to cause developed a website for this proposal, interference. According to the For the reasons discussed in the which is available at https:// Petitioner, it has received numerous preamble, the Federal Communications www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions- complaints of poor or no reception from Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR vehicles-and-engines/proposed-rule- viewers, and explains the importance of part 73 as follows: revise-existing-national-ghg-emissions. a strong over-the-air signal in the Portland area during emergencies, PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST Please refer to the notice of proposed SERVICES rulemaking for detailed information on when, it states, cable and satellite accessing information related to the service may go out of operation. Finally, ■ 1. The authority citation for part 73 proposal. the Petitioner demonstrated that the continues to read as follows: channel 21 noise limited contour would Dated: July 29, 2021. fully encompass the existing channel 12 Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, William Charmley, contour, and an analysis using the 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339. Director, Assessment and Standards Division, Commission’s TVStudy software ■ 2.
    [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]
  • Kanab Ambersnail (Oxyloma Kanabense)
    TOC Page | 88 KANAB AMBERSNAIL (OXYLOMA KANABENSE) Navajo/Federal Statuses: NESL G4 / listed endangered 17 APR 1992 (57FR:13657). Distribution: Only two populations known: 1) near Kanab in Kane County, UT; 2) at Vasey's Paradise in Grand Canyon National Park (75.3 km downstream of Glen Canyon Dam). Potential is likely restricted to western Navajo Nation; including tributaries of Colorado and Little Colorado Rivers, springs on Echo Cliffs, and creeks north and west of Navajo Mountain. Habitat: Restricted to perennially wet soil surfaces or shallow standing water and decaying plant matter associated with springs and seep-fed marshes near sandstone or limestone cliffs. Vegetative cover is necessary; cattails, monkeyflower, or watercress are present at the two known locations, but wetland grasses and sedges may suffice. Similar Species: other Succineid snails; see Pilsbry, 1948. Phenology: m.MAR-l.MAR: emergence from winter dormancy by previous year’s young e.APR-e.JUL: maturation e.JUL-l.AUG: peak reproduction l.AUG-l.SEP: growth of young, die-off of adults >l.SEP: growth of young, winter dormancy Survey Method: Pedestrian surveys within suitable habitat examining on and under wetland vegetation for live or dead snails. Federal permit required for collection. Suggested reference: Spamer and Bogan, in press. Avoidance: No surface disturbance year-round within 60 m of occupied habitat; no alteration of water quantity and chemistry. References: Pilsbry, H.A. 1948. Land mollusca of North America (North of Mexico). Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Monographs II, No.3. (description, p.797) Spamer, E.E. and A.E. Bogan. in press.
    [Show full text]
  • Kyfishid[1].Pdf
    Kentucky Fishes Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission To conserve, protect and enhance Kentucky’s fish and wildlife resources and provide outstanding opportunities for hunting, fishing, trapping, boating, shooting sports, wildlife viewing, and related activities. Federal Aid Project funded by your purchase of fishing equipment and motor boat fuels Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources #1 Sportsman’s Lane, Frankfort, KY 40601 1-800-858-1549 • fw.ky.gov Kentucky Fish & Wildlife’s Mission Kentucky Fishes by Matthew R. Thomas Fisheries Program Coordinator 2011 (Third edition, 2021) Kentucky Department of Fish & Wildlife Resources Division of Fisheries Cover paintings by Rick Hill • Publication design by Adrienne Yancy Preface entucky is home to a total of 245 native fish species with an additional 24 that have been introduced either intentionally (i.e., for sport) or accidentally. Within Kthe United States, Kentucky’s native freshwater fish diversity is exceeded only by Alabama and Tennessee. This high diversity of native fishes corresponds to an abun- dance of water bodies and wide variety of aquatic habitats across the state – from swift upland streams to large sluggish rivers, oxbow lakes, and wetlands. Approximately 25 species are most frequently caught by anglers either for sport or food. Many of these species occur in streams and rivers statewide, while several are routinely stocked in public and private water bodies across the state, especially ponds and reservoirs. The largest proportion of Kentucky’s fish fauna (80%) includes darters, minnows, suckers, madtoms, smaller sunfishes, and other groups (e.g., lam- preys) that are rarely seen by most people.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior U.S
    United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021-4951 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 FAX: (602) 242-2513 In Reply Refer To: AESO/SE 22410-2011-F-0100 22410-2011-F-0112 December 23, 2011 Memorandum To: Regional Director, Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah From: Field Supervisor Subject: Final Biological Opinion on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam including High Flow Experiments and Non-Native Fish Control Thank you for your request for formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544), as amended (ESA). Your January 2011 request was supplemented with Biological Assessment (BA) dated July 13, 2011, and received by us on July 15, with supplements provided as described in the Consultation History section of this document. At issue are impacts that may result from the proposed 10-year continued operation of Glen Canyon Dam under the Modified Low Fluctuating Flows (MLFF) alternative along with High Flow Experimental (HFE) Releases and Non-Native Fish (NNFC) Control downstream from Glen Canyon Dam (GCD), Coconino County, Arizona. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) concluded that the proposed action “may affect, and is likely to adversely affect” the humpback chub (Gila cypha) and its critical habitat, the razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) and its critical habitat, and the Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma kanabensis haydenii). You also concluded that the proposed action “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus).
    [Show full text]
  • How to Use This Checklist
    How To Use This Checklist JAWLESS FISHES: SUPERCLASS AGNATHA Pikes: Family Esocidae LAMPREYS: CLASS CEPHALASPIDOMORPHI __ Grass Pickerel Esox americanus O Lampreys: Family Petromyzontidae __ Northern Pike Esox lucius O; Lake Erie and Hinckley Lake; The information presented in this checklist reflects our __ Silver Lamprey Ichthyomyzon unicuspis h current understanding of the status of fishes within Cleveland formerly common __ American brook Lamprey Lampetra appendix R; __ Muskellunge Esox masquinongy R; Lake Erie; Metroparks. You can add to our understanding by being a Chagrin River formerly common knowledgeable observer. Record your observations and __ *Sea Lamprey Petromyzon marinus O; Lake Erie; Minnows: Family Cyprinidae contact a naturalist if you find something that may be of formerly common; native to Atlantic Coast __ Golden Shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas C interest. JAWED FISHES: SUPERCLASS __ Redside Dace Clinostomus elongatus O GNATHOSTOMATA __ Southern Redbelly Dace Phoxinus erythrogaster R Species are listed taxonomically. Each species is listed with a BONY FISHES: CLASS OSTEICHTHYES __ Creek Chub Semotilus atromaculatus C common name, a scientific name and a note about its Sturgeons: Family Acipenseridae __ Hornyhead Chub Nocomis biguttatus h; formerly in occurrence within Cleveland Metroparks. Check off species __ Lake Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens h; Lake Erie; Cuyahoga and Chagrin River drainages. that you identify in Cleveland Metroparks. Ohio endangered __ River Chub Nocomis micropogon C; Chagrin River; O Gars: Family
    [Show full text]