DOCSLIB.ORG

St. David Cienega Restoration Plan Community Watershed Alliance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
St. David Cienega Restoration Plan Community Watershed Alliance St. David Cienega Restoration Plan Community Watershed Alliance Thomas R. Biebighauser October 17, 2019 St. David Cienega Restoration Plan Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................3 Background .................................................................................................................................4 Purpose and Need for Proposal:................................................................................................. 19 Wetland Restoration Design ...................................................................................................... 21 Invasive Species ........................................................................................................................ 29 Invasive Native and Nonnative Plant Control ............................................................................ 30 Mosquitoes................................................................................................................................ 30 Heavy Equipment Requirements ............................................................................................... 31 Engineering Design – Service or Construction Contract?........................................................... 32 Construction Monitoring ........................................................................................................... 33 Buried Utilities .......................................................................................................................... 34 Climate Change ......................................................................................................................... 34 Project Implementation ............................................................................................................. 35 Budget ...................................................................................................................................... 35 Summary................................................................................................................................... 35 Funded by: ................................................................................................................................ 36 Prepared by: .............................................................................................................................. 36 About the Author: ..................................................................................................................... 36 Appendix 1: Photos Showing Wetlands Constructed in Arid Regions by the Author ................. 37 Appendix 2: Wetland Construction on Saturated Soils ............................................................... 63 2 St. David Cienega Restoration Plan Executive Summary Actions are outlined for restoring the St. David Cienega to provide habitat for the Federally listed Desert pupfish, Gila chub, Gila topminnow, Chiricahua leopard frog, Northern Mexican gartersnake, Huachuca water umbel, Canelo Hills ladies’ tresses (Spiranthes delitescens), and Arizona eryngo (soon to be listed). The restored wetlands may also provide habitat for the other aquatic/wetland species such as lowland leopard frog, Mexican Duck (and other waterfowl), Sonora mud turtle, various shore and wading birds. Areas of open water and the elevation of groundwater would be restored by filling ditches and by excavating naturally appearing and functioning wetlands that do not use pipes, pumps, or diversions to maintain water levels. The project would improve wildlife viewing and hunting opportunities, and be designed to require little, if any maintenance, except for the periodic control of nonnative plants, and possibly cattails and bulrushes. Introduction The St. David Cienega is a 386-acre unit of land administered by the United States Bureau of Land Management. St. David Cienega is an extensive wetland within the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (SPRNCA). The Cienega contains large areas of bottomland grasses, mesquite bosques, and net-leaf hackberry trees with areas of sedges and open water choked by bulrushes. The author examined the St. David Cienega for restoration opportunities on June 1 and 2, 2018 at the request of the Community Watershed Alliance. The following individuals assisted the author in the investigation of the St. David Cienega: Catie Armstrong (Community Watershed Alliance) Tom Bousman (Community Watershed Alliance) Howard Buchanan (Community Watershed Alliance) Kali Holtschlag (Community Watershed Alliance) Mike Holtschlag (Community Watershed Alliance) Mary McCool (Community Watershed Alliance) Carmen Miller (Community Watershed Alliance) David Murray (Bureau of Land Management) Jeffrey Simms (Bureau of Land Management) Kristin Terpening (Arizona Game and Fish Department) Laura White (Community Watershed Alliance) John Windes (Arizona Game and Fish Department) 3 St. David Cienega Restoration Plan The author worked to identify and design management actions for the St. David Cienega that would: 1. Restore areas of open water 2. Restore the elevation of groundwater 3. Increase the area of wetlands 4. Provide habitat for Federally listed Endangered and Threatened species of animals and plants, as well as, a wide variety of species that require aquatic and wetland habitats. 5. Increase opportunities to view and hunt wildlife Efforts were made to identify and map all ditches affecting the St. David Cienega. Constructed features such as railroad embankments, culverts, and pipelines were examined to determine if they were affecting the St. David Cienega. Soil texture, and the presence or absence of groundwater at potential project locations was determined using a 48-inch long tile probe, and a 52-inch long open-face soil auger. The texture of the soil at each location was determined using the ribbon test. Portions of the St. David Cienega were surveyed using a laser level and survey rod. Elevation locations were recorded. The perimeter of designed projects was recorded using a GPS. Background The St. David Cienega once contained large pools of open water1. Rancher Carmen Miller remembers visiting these areas of open water within the St. David Cienega as a child.2 Anecdotal records collected by members of the Community Watershed Alliance report that the open water was maintained by ranchers using fire, grazing, dredging, blasting, and herbicide application. The presence of an extensive network of ditches constructed prior to the BLM purchasing the land in 1988 shows that actions were taken to protect El Paso gas pipeline, which was installed in 1935, and to spread water from the St. David Cienega to irrigate grassland. Approximately 8,206-feet of ditches were identified that are now affecting the St. David Cienega. The ditches that were constructed within and around the St. David Cienega, which are visible on a 1956 aerial photograph, are still functioning today. These ditches affect the St. David Cienega by removing standing water, and by lowering the elevation of groundwater. The St. David Cienega has been modified by the following activities: 1 Brown, D.E. 1985. Arizona wetlands and waterfowl. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 2 Carmen Miller personal communication with T.R. Biebighauser on June 2, 2018. 4 St. David Cienega Restoration Plan 1) A 4-foot deep x 40-foot wide ditch was dug to channel water to the south, under the El Paso gas easement via a culvert to Headcut Creek. 2) A series of irrigation ditches were dug to move water from the St. David Cienega to grasslands located downhill (north) from the Cienega. 3) Several low dams were built to impound water. These dams are no longer functioning or leak. 4) Ditches are drying the Cienega by diverting runoff, removing surface water, and by lowering the elevation of groundwater. The ditches provide poor habitat for fish and wildlife because they only periodically contain water, lack pools, riffles, woody debris, and some are eroding. 5) The ditches lowered the elevation of groundwater in the Cienega, providing conditions where shrubs and trees may now dominate areas that once supported sedges, grasses, and aquatic plants. 6) The ditches reduced the depth of water in open water wetlands, allowing bulrushes to fill open water. The annual growth and die-back of bulrushes and cattails have created mats of organic material that are over 4-feet thick, filling areas that were once open water. 7) Within the Cienega, water from springs once flowed in a sheet-like pattern, saturating soils and supporting a diversity of wetlands, pools and streams. The dug ditches have concentrated runoff into narrow channels that are now eroding in some cases. 8) Deep and long ditches were dug to remove water from the Cienega. This may have been done so that pasture fields may be irrigated, and other fields managed for hay. The ditches eliminated water standing in wetlands and lowered the elevation of groundwater. 9) Head-cuts have formed in some of the ditches. These head-cuts have caused a deepening and widening of ditches, eliminating surface water, and lowering the elevation of groundwater. The ditches and head-cuts are responsible for draining many acres of natural wet-meadows. 10) The ditches that were dug are no longer being used. These ditches continue to divert runoff, lowering the elevation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Genetics, Ecology, and Conservation Management of the Rare Orchid Spiranthes Diluvialis
    Aqui egza• Newsletter of the Colorado Native Plant Society " ... dedicated to the appreciation and conservation of the Colorado native flora" IVOlumet8Number2 The Genetics, Ecology, and Conservation Management of the Rare Orchid Spiranthes diluvialis Anna'Maria Arft ~ through the winter months. exist in wetland habitats such as sub irrigated University of Colorado at Boulder "ff1VT II Reproduction appears to be meadows, alluvial terraces, and abandoned strictly sexual with bumble bees stream channels where the soil is saturated at (Bombus species) as the primary pollinators least temporarily during the spring and Spiranthes diluvialis is one of twelve species (Sheviak, 1984; Sipes et aI., 1993). Upon summer growing season. Potential threats to federally listed as Threatened or Endangered germination, many species of Spiranthes the species' habitat include stream \n Colorado. During the past three years, are infected by a mycorrhizal fungus and channelization, water diversions, urban '-'"'I've been engaged in research on this species may persist underground for many years development, and agricultural use. since little was known of the genetic, before leaves emerge above ground. These ecological, and demographic processes individuals may not flower in consecutive PhylogenetiC Origin affecting its life history and long-term year~ or under unfavorable conditions, and Although S. diluvialis is currently recognized survival. My research addresses three areas may survive. due to specific symbiotic as a distinct species, in the past some concerning the evolution and long-term controversy has surrounded its status. The survival of S. diluvialis: phylogenetic or relationships with mycorrhizal W fungi (Wells, 1981). distinctness ofS. diluvialis as a species forms . genealogical history, genetic variation within i the basis for its protection under the .
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species Series No. 4 Petition to List The
    . 1 OC t,(.3 t r a-k. PETITION TO LIST THE HUACHUCA WATER UMBELL Lilaeopsis schaffneriana subspecies recurva AS A FEDERALLY ENDANGERED SPECIES May 31, 1993 GREATER GILA BIODIVERSITY PROJECT ENDANGERED SPECIES SERIES NO. 4 May 31, 1993 Mr. Bruce Babbitt Secretary of the Interior Office of the Secretary Department of the Interior 18th and "C" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240 Kieran Suckling, the Greater Gila Biodiversity Project, the Southwest Center For Biological Diversity, and the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, hereby formally petition to list the Huachuca Water Umbell (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana subspecies recurva) as endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. (hereafter referred to as "ESA"). This petition is filed under 5 U.S.C. 553(e) and 50 CFR 424.14 (1990), which grants interested parties the right to petition for issue of a rule from the Assistant Secretary of the Interior. Petitioners also request that Critical Habitat be designated concurrent with the listing, pursuant to 50 CFR 424.12, and pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553). Petitioners understand that this petition action sets in motion a specific process placing definite response requirements on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and very specific time constraints upon those responses. Petitioners Kieran Suckling is a Doctoral Candidate, endangered species field researcher, and conservationist. He serves as the Director of the Greater Gila Biodiversity Project and has extensively studied the status and natural history of Lilaeopsis schaffneriana subspecies recurva. The Greater Gila Biodiversity Project is a non-profit public interest organization created to protect imperiled species and habitats within the Greater Gila Ecosystem of southwest New Mexico and eastern Arizona.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 665
    Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 665 231A to Morristown at Station DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR springs and stream headwaters, have WMXK(FM)'s existing site at permanently or seasonally saturated coordinates North Latitude 36±13±40 Fish and Wildlife Service highly organic soils, and have a low and West Longitude 83±19±58; and probability of flooding or scouring 50 CFR Part 17 Channel 252A to Whitley City at Station (Hendrickson and Minckley 1984). WHAY(FM)'s existing site at North RIN 1018±AD11 Cienegas support diverse assemblages of Latitude 36±44±39 and West Longitude animals and plants, including many 84±28±37. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife species of limited distribution, such as and Plants; Determination of the three taxa addressed in this final This is a summary of the Endangered Status for Three Wetland rule (Hendrickson and Minckley 1984, Commission's Memorandum Opinion Species Found in Southern Arizona Lowe 1985, Ohmart and Anderson 1982, and Order, MM Docket No. 93±28, and Northern Sonora, Mexico Minckley and Brown 1982). Although adopted December 13, 1996 and Spiranthes delitescens (Spiranthes), released December 20, 1996. The full AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Lilaeopsis schaffneriana spp. recurva text of this Commission decision is Interior. (Lilaeopsis), and the Sonora tiger available for inspection and copying ACTION: Final rule. salamander typically occupy different during normal business hours in microhabitats, they all occur or once SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service Commission's Reference Center (Room occurred in cienegas. Lilaeopsis is also (Service) determines endangered status 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, found along streams and rivers and for the Canelo Hills ladies-tresses occurs at mid-elevations, from 1,148± DC 20554.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 FAX: (602) 242-2513 AESO/SE 02-21-98-F-0399-R2 January 2, 2004 Mr. John McGee, Forest Supervisor Coronado National Forest 300 West Congress Street, 6th Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701 Dear Mr. McGee: This reinitiated, final biological and conference opinion (BO) responds to your request for consultation with us pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544), as amended (Act). Your revised and clarified request for reinitiation of formal consultation was dated May 8, 2003, and received by us on May 12, 2003. At issue are effects that may result from livestock grazing on the Kunde and Papago allotments, in Santa Cruz County, Arizona. Our original biological and conference opinion was dated October 25, 2002 (02-21-98-F-399-R1) (2002 BO). You requested reinitiation of consultation because: • we proposed to list the Gila chub (Gila intermedia) as endangered with critical habitat (67 FR 51948), • adverse effects to the threatened Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana chiricahuensis) are likely to occur (our staffs discussed this topic during a September 25, 2003 telephone conversation and we jointly agreed to formally consult on the frog. Effects are anticipated to be similar for the frog as for the proposed endangered Gila chub), • Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis) were documented in O’Donnell Creek by Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) personnel and others on November 10, 2003, • the Kunde allotment was covered for only one year in the original opinion, • a more refined analysis of capable acreage modified the 2002 BA figure of 13,380 capable acres to 12,205 capable acres for the combined Papago/Z-Triangle allotment, and • Kunde and Papago allotments will be permitted for reduced livestock numbers compared to the original consultation.
    [Show full text]
  • Kent Academic Repository Kent Academic Repository Full Text Document (Pdf)
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Kent Academic Repository Kent Academic Repository Full text document (pdf) Citation for published version Hinsley, Amy and de Boer, Hugo J. and Fay, Michael F. and Gale, Stephan W. and Gardiner, Lauren M. and Gunasekara, Rajasinghe S. and Kumar, Pankaj and Masters, Susanne and Metusala, Destario and Roberts, David L. and Veldman, Sarina and Wong, Shan and Phelps, Jacob (2017) A review of the trade in orchids and its implications for conservation. Botanical Journal of the DOI https://doi.org/10.1093/botlinnean/box083 Link to record in KAR https://kar.kent.ac.uk/65487/ Document Version Author's Accepted Manuscript Copyright & reuse Content in the Kent Academic Repository is made available for research purposes. Unless otherwise stated all content is protected by copyright and in the absence of an open licence (eg Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher, author or other copyright holder. Versions of research The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record. Enquiries For any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact: [email protected] If you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.html A review of the trade in orchids, and its implications for conservation AMY HINSLEY1,2*, HUGO J.
    [Show full text]
  • Publications1
    PUBLICATIONS1 Book Chapters: Zettler LW, J Sharma, and FN Rasmussen. 2003. Mycorrhizal Diversity (Chapter 11; pp. 205-226). In Orchid Conservation. KW Dixon, SP Kell, RL Barrett and PJ Cribb (eds). 418 pages. Natural History Publications, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia. ISBN: 9838120782 Books and Book Chapters Edited: Sharma J. (Editor). 2010. North American Native Orchid Conservation: Preservation, Propagation, and Restoration. Conference Proceedings of the Native Orchid Conference - Green Bay, Wisconsin. Native Orchid Conference, Inc., Greensboro, North Carolina. 131 pages, plus CD. (Public Review by Dr. Paul M. Catling published in The Canadian Field-Naturalist Vol. 125. pp 86 - 88; http://journals.sfu.ca/cfn/index.php/cfn/article/viewFile/1142/1146). Peer-reviewed Publications (besides Journal publications or refereed proceedings) Goedeke, T., Sharma, J., Treher, A., Frances, A. & *Poff, K. 2016. Calopogon multiflorus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T64175911A86066804. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016- 1.RLTS.T64175911A86066804.en. Treher, A., Sharma, J., Frances, A. & *Poff, K. 2015. Basiphyllaea corallicola. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T64175902A64175905. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015- 4.RLTS.T64175902A64175905.en. Goedeke, T., Sharma, J., Treher, A., Frances, A. & *Poff, K. 2015. Corallorhiza bentleyi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T64175940A64175949. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015- 4.RLTS.T64175940A64175949.en. Treher, A., Sharma, J., Frances, A. & *Poff, K. 2015. Eulophia ecristata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T64176842A64176871. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015- 4.RLTS.T64176842A64176871.en.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 665
    Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 665 231A to Morristown at Station DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR springs and stream headwaters, have WMXK(FM)'s existing site at permanently or seasonally saturated coordinates North Latitude 36±13±40 Fish and Wildlife Service highly organic soils, and have a low and West Longitude 83±19±58; and probability of flooding or scouring 50 CFR Part 17 Channel 252A to Whitley City at Station (Hendrickson and Minckley 1984). WHAY(FM)'s existing site at North RIN 1018±AD11 Cienegas support diverse assemblages of Latitude 36±44±39 and West Longitude animals and plants, including many 84±28±37. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife species of limited distribution, such as and Plants; Determination of the three taxa addressed in this final This is a summary of the Endangered Status for Three Wetland rule (Hendrickson and Minckley 1984, Commission's Memorandum Opinion Species Found in Southern Arizona Lowe 1985, Ohmart and Anderson 1982, and Order, MM Docket No. 93±28, and Northern Sonora, Mexico Minckley and Brown 1982). Although adopted December 13, 1996 and Spiranthes delitescens (Spiranthes), released December 20, 1996. The full AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Lilaeopsis schaffneriana spp. recurva text of this Commission decision is Interior. (Lilaeopsis), and the Sonora tiger available for inspection and copying ACTION: Final rule. salamander typically occupy different during normal business hours in microhabitats, they all occur or once SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service Commission's Reference Center (Room occurred in cienegas. Lilaeopsis is also (Service) determines endangered status 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, found along streams and rivers and for the Canelo Hills ladies-tresses occurs at mid-elevations, from 1,148± DC 20554.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plants
    Tracking Rare Orchids (Orchidaceae) in Arizona RONALD A. COLEMAN University of Arizona Abstract: Twenty-six native orchid species occur in Arizona, and 14 are considered rare with fewer than 100 occurrences in the state. The author is conducting three studies covering four of the wild orchids: Stenorrhynchos michuncnnum, Hexnlectris revolutn, Mnlnxis porphyrm, and M. tenuis. The studies are ongoing so only interim results are available. Interim results indi- cate that plants of S. michtincantim and H. rez~olutndo not bloom every year, and in the latter case do not come up every year. The study on Mnlnxis is looking at recovery rates in damaged habitat, but is still in its first year. Twenty-six native orchid species in 13 genera from 15 to more than 20 cm long and up to 3 cm occur in Arizona. Fourteen are considered rare in wide. Plants that do not bloom the following year the state, using the Nature Conservancy's ranking are often reduced in size to one or two leaves of relative rareness, with rankings of S1, S2, or S3 under 10 cm in length. A common companion, being considered rare. A ranking of S1 implies 5 or essentially an indicator plant, is Milln biflorn. fewer occurrences in the state; S2 implies 6 to 20 Stenorrhynchos michuncnnum is distributed occurrences; and S3 implies 21 to 100 occurrences. widely in Mexico, and it is named after the Mexi- A list of all of the native orchids in Arizona and can state of Michoacan. It is historically rare in the their rarity ranking is in Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • CANELO HILLS LADIES' TRESSES Spiranthes Delitescens AS a FEDERALLY ENDANGERED SPECIES 1
    PETITION TO LIST THE CANELO HILLS LADIES' TRESSES Spiranthes delitescens AS A FEDERALLY ENDANGERED SPECIES 1 Mr. Bruce Babbitt Secretary of the Interior Office of the Secretary Department of the Interior 18th and "C" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240 Kieran Suckling, the Greater Gila Biodiversity Project, the Southwest Center For Biological Diversity, and the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, hereby formally petition to list the Canelo Hills Ladies' Tresses (Spiranthes delitescens) as endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seg. (hereafter referred to as "ESA"). This petition is filed under 5 U.S.C. 553(e) and 50 CFR 424.14 (1990), which grants interested parties the right to petition for issue of a rule from the Assistant Secretary of the Interior. Petitioners also request that Critical Habitat be designated concurrent with the listing, pursuant to 50 CFR 424.12, and pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553). Petitioners understand that this petition action sets in motion a specific process placing definite response requirements on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and very specific time constraints upon those responses. Petitioners Kieran Suckling is a Doctoral Candidate, endangered species field researcher, and conservationist. He serves as the Director of the Greater Gila Biodiversity Project and has extensively studied the status and natural history of Spiranthes delitescens. The Greater Gila Biodiversity Project is a non-profit public interest organization created to protect imperiled species and habitats within the Greater Gila Ecosystem of southwest New Mexico and eastern Arizona. Through public education, Endangered Species Act petitions, appeals and litigation, it seeks to restore and protect the integrity of the Greater Gila Ecosystem.
    [Show full text]
  • Conserving North America's Threatened Plants
    Conserving North America’s Threatened Plants Progress report on Target 8 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation Conserving North America’s Threatened Plants Progress report on Target 8 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation By Andrea Kramer, Abby Hird, Kirsty Shaw, Michael Dosmann, and Ray Mims January 2011 Recommended ciTaTion: Kramer, A., A. Hird, K. Shaw, M. Dosmann, and R. Mims. 2011. Conserving North America’s Threatened Plants: Progress report on Target 8 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation . BoTanic Gardens ConservaTion InTernaTional U.S. Published by BoTanic Gardens ConservaTion InTernaTional U.S. 1000 Lake Cook Road Glencoe, IL 60022 USA www.bgci.org/usa Design: John Morgan, [email protected] Contents Acknowledgements . .3 Foreword . .4 Executive Summary . .5 Chapter 1. The North American Flora . .6 1.1 North America’s plant diversity . .7 1.2 Threats to North America’s plant diversity . .7 1.3 Conservation status and protection of North America’s plants . .8 1.3.1 Regional conservaTion sTaTus and naTional proTecTion . .9 1.3.2 Global conservaTion sTaTus and proTecTion . .10 1.4 Integrated plant conservation . .11 1.4.1 In situ conservaTion . .11 1.4.2 Ex situ collecTions and conservaTion applicaTions . .12 1.4.3 ParameTers of ex situ collecTions for conservaTion . .16 1.5 Global perspective and work on ex situ conservation . .18 1.5.1 Global STraTegy for PlanT ConservaTion, TargeT 8 . .18 Chapter 2. North American Collections Assessment . .19 2.1 Background . .19 2.2 Methodology . .19 2.2.1 Compiling lisTs of ThreaTened NorTh American Taxa .
    [Show full text]
  • Final Fort Huachuca Biological Opinion
    United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 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 22410-2007-F-0132 June 14, 2007 02-21-02-F-229 02-21-98-F-266 Colonel Jonathan B. Hunter Commander, U.S. Army Garrison 2837 Boyd Avenue, Rodney Hall Fort Huachuca, Arizona 85613-7001 Dear Col. Hunter: Thank you for your request for formal consultation with the FWS pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544), as amended (Act). Your request was dated December 28, 2006, and received by us on December 29, 2006. We transmitted a letter requesting additional information on January 11, 2007. Your submittal of additional information was dated February 12, 2007, and was received by us on February 14, 2007. At issue are impacts that may result from the proposed ongoing and future military operations and activities at Fort Huachuca, Cochise County, Arizona. The proposed action may affect the endangered Huachuca water umbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurva) and the species’ critical habitat, the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) with critical habitat, the threatened Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida), the endangered lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae), and the endangered Sonora tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi). You also requested formal consultation on the Huachuca springsnail (Pyrgulopsis thompsoni), a candidate for Federal listing, and the Ramsey Canyon leopard frog (Rana subaquavocalis), which lacks any Federal status at this time, and you requested informal consultation on the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), a candidate for Federal listing.
    [Show full text]
  • The San Rafael Ranch
    San Rafael Ranch Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan Santa Cruz County, Arizona Prepared for: San Rafael Cattle Company Ross Humphreys and Susan Lowell, general partners 1613 Patagonia-San Rafael Road Patagonia, Arizona 85624 Prepared by: David L. Harlow Environmental Consulting 4033 Poppleton Way Carmichael, CA 95608 December 2015 Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1 Section 1: Introduction and Background .......................................................................... 3 1.1 Overview and Background ................................................................................ 3 1.2 Permit Holder/Permit Duration ........................................................................... 3 1.3 Permit Boundary/Covered Lands ...................................................................... 4 1.4 Species to be Covered by Permit ...................................................................... 4 1.5 Regulatory Framework ......................................................................................... 5 1.5.1 Federal Endangered Species Act ................................................................. 5 1.5.2 The Section 10(a)(1)(B) Process - Habitat Conservation Plan Requirements and Guidelines ............................................................................................................. 6 Section 2: Project Description/Activities Covered by Permit ........................................... 8 2.1
    [Show full text]