DOCSLIB.ORG

Gila National Forest

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Travel Management Rule Implementation Gila National Forest Aquatic Specialist Report Prepared by Jerry A. Monzingo Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plant Biologist December 10, 2013 Implementation of the Travel Management Rule Implementation – Gila National Forest The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) April 2013 – Gila National Forest Page - 2 - Implementation of the Travel Management Rule Implementation – Gila National Forest Contents Analysis Question ............................................................................................................................... - 5 - Affected Environment ........................................................................................................................ - 5 - Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy ............................................................................................ - 5 - Methodology and Analysis Process .................................................................................................... - 6 - Analysis Framework ....................................................................................................................... - 6 - Data & Methods ............................................................................................................................. - 6 - Assumptions ................................................................................................................................... - 7 - Effects Analysis .................................................................................................................................. - 7 - Effects of the No Action Alternative .............................................................................................. - 7 - Effects Common to all Action Alternatives ................................................................................... - 8 - General Effects ........................................................................................................................... - 8 - Direct and Indirect Effects ............................................................................................................. - 9 - Routes Within 300 Feet of Streams .......................................................................................... - 10 - Road-stream Crossings ............................................................................................................. - 11 - Impaired Water Quality Streams .............................................................................................. - 12 - Route Density and Use ............................................................................................................. - 16 - Motorized Dispersed Camping ................................................................................................. - 18 - Motorized Big Game Retrieval ................................................................................................. - 19 - Motorized Areas ....................................................................................................................... - 19 - Lower San Francisco River....................................................................................................... - 19 - Aquatic Resources .................................................................................................................... - 20 - Individual Species Analysis ...................................................................................................... - 21 - Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ............................................................ - 57 - Cumulative Effects ....................................................................................................................... - 57 - Effects of Forest Plan Amendments ............................................................................................. - 58 - Relevant Literature ........................................................................................................................... - 59 - April 2013 – Gila National Forest Page - 3 - Implementation of the Travel Management Rule Implementation – Gila National Forest Analysis Question What effects will changes to the current transportation system, motorized dispersed camping, motorized big game retrieval, and areas have on aquatic habitats and species? Affected Environment The Gila National Forest (GNF) is situated within four river basins, the Gila-San Francisco, Mimbres, Little Colorado, and Rio Grande. Among them, species diversity, richness, and endemism are variable and depend, in part, on geologic history, relative proximity to more mesic and species-rich regions, climatic factors, and relative size and complexity of each drainage (Propst, 1999). The GNF has three manmade lakes completely or partially on National Forest lands and hundreds of miles of streams within one hundred-eighty 6th code watersheds. Aquatic features found on the GNF include both lotic (moving water) and lentic (still water) systems. There are over 1700 miles of perennial and intermittent stream habitat that occur in watersheds of the Gila National Forest within the project area. These streams contain a variety of aquatic species (see table 29 for federally listed species and table 47 for Region 3 sensitive species), most significant of which are those native resident species that are key for aquatic habitat management. These species’ designations as endangered, threatened, sensitive and/or as management indicator species (MIS) emphasize the need for not only conservation, but also recovery efforts as part of interagency management programs throughout the project area. Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy Forest Service Manual 2670 and Forest Service Handbook 2609.25 provide direction regarding Forest Service sensitive species, which are identified by the Regional Forester. The Forest Service develops and implements management practices to ensure that rare plants and animals do not become threatened or endangered, and ensure their continued viability on National Forests. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) states that each Federal agency shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species. Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, requires the responsible federal agency to consult the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning threatened or endangered fish species under their jurisdiction. There are five fish species that are listed under the Endangered Species Act on the GNF: loach minnow, spikedace, Gila chub, Chihuahua chub, and Gila trout. Gila National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan identified the following relevant management standards and guidelines for fisheries resources across the entire forest: C01, C11: Manage threatened, endangered, and sensitive animal, fish, and plant habitat to achieve delisting in a manner consistent with the goals established with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish in compliance with approved recovery plans. C02: Manage riparian areas to protect the productivity and diversity of riparian dependent resources by requiring actions within or affecting riparian areas to protect and where applicable, April 2013 – Gila National Forest Page - 5 - Implementation of the Travel Management Rule Implementation – Gila National Forest improve dependent resources. Emphasize protection of soil, water, vegetation, and wildlife and fish resources prior to implementing projects. C02: Give preferential consideration to resources dependent on riparian areas over other resources. Other resource activities may occur to the extent that they support or do not adversely affect riparian dependent resources. C02: Wildlife coordination and improvement efforts will include emphasis on riparian and aquatic area management. L04, L05: Road construction will be avoided in riparian areas. LRMP standards and guidelines related to water quality are displayed in the Hydrology section. Methodology and Analysis Process Analysis Framework The project area includes all NFS lands within the administrative boundary of the Gila National Forest. The geographic extent of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects analysis is generally confined to aquatic features of watersheds within this administrative boundary. The area of analysis was chosen based on the potential for motorized routes on NFS lands to affect aquatic systems. It assumes that motorized routes located in watersheds on the GNF that influence larger riverine systems could have a measurable influence on these systems immediately adjacent to and downstream of the Forest. Therefore, this analysis will focus
Recommended publications
  • Roundtail Chub (Gila Robusta Robusta): a Technical Conservation Assessment

    Roundtail Chub (Gila Robusta Robusta): a Technical Conservation Assessment

    Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta robusta): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project May 3, 2005 David E. Rees, Jonathan A. Ptacek, and William J. Miller Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 1113 Stoney Hill Drive, Suite A Fort Collins, Colorado 80525-1275 Peer Review Administered by American Fisheries Society Rees, D.E., J.A. Ptacek, and W.J. Miller. (2005, May 3). Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta robusta): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http:// www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/roundtailchub.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank those people who promoted, assisted, and supported this species assessment for the Region 2 USDA Forest Service. Ryan Carr and Kellie Richardson conducted preliminary literature reviews and were valuable in the determination of important or usable literature. Laura Hillger provided assistance with report preparation and dissemination. Numerous individuals from Region 2 national forests were willing to discuss the status and management of this species. Thanks go to Greg Eaglin (Medicine Bow National Forest), Dave Gerhardt (San Juan National Forest), Kathy Foster (Routt National Forest), Clay Spease and Chris James (Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest), Christine Hirsch (White River National Forest), as well as Gary Patton and Joy Bartlett from the Regional Office. Dan Brauh, Lory Martin, Tom Nesler, Kevin Rogers, and Allen Zincush, all of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, provided information on species distribution, management, and current regulations. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES David E. Rees studied fishery biology, aquatic ecology, and ecotoxicology at Colorado State University where he received his B.S.
  • Edna Assay Development

    Edna Assay Development

    Environmental DNA assays available for species detection via qPCR analysis at the U.S.D.A Forest Service National Genomics Center for Wildlife and Fish Conservation (NGC). Asterisks indicate the assay was designed at the NGC. This list was last updated in June 2021 and is subject to change. Please contact [email protected] with questions. Family Species Common name Ready for use? Mustelidae Martes americana, Martes caurina American and Pacific marten* Y Castoridae Castor canadensis American beaver Y Ranidae Lithobates catesbeianus American bullfrog Y Cinclidae Cinclus mexicanus American dipper* N Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel Y Soricidae Sorex palustris American water shrew* N Salmonidae Oncorhynchus clarkii ssp Any cutthroat trout* N Petromyzontidae Lampetra spp. Any Lampetra* Y Salmonidae Salmonidae Any salmonid* Y Cottidae Cottidae Any sculpin* Y Salmonidae Thymallus arcticus Arctic grayling* Y Cyrenidae Corbicula fluminea Asian clam* N Salmonidae Salmo salar Atlantic Salmon Y Lymnaeidae Radix auricularia Big-eared radix* N Cyprinidae Mylopharyngodon piceus Black carp N Ictaluridae Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead* N Catostomidae Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker* N Cichlidae Oreochromis aureus Blue tilapia* N Catostomidae Catostomus discobolus Bluehead sucker* N Catostomidae Catostomus virescens Bluehead sucker* Y Felidae Lynx rufus Bobcat* Y Hylidae Pseudocris maculata Boreal chorus frog N Hydrocharitaceae Egeria densa Brazilian elodea N Salmonidae Salvelinus fontinalis Brook trout* Y Colubridae Boiga irregularis Brown tree snake*
  • Quantitative PCR Assays for Detecting Loach Minnow (Rhinichthys Cobitis) and Spikedace (Meda Fulgida) in the Southwestern United States

    Quantitative PCR Assays for Detecting Loach Minnow (Rhinichthys Cobitis) and Spikedace (Meda Fulgida) in the Southwestern United States

    RESEARCH ARTICLE Quantitative PCR Assays for Detecting Loach Minnow (Rhinichthys cobitis) and Spikedace (Meda fulgida) in the Southwestern United States Joseph C. Dysthe1*, Kellie J. Carim1, Yvette M. Paroz2, Kevin S. McKelvey1, Michael K. Young1, Michael K. Schwartz1 1 United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Genomics Center for Wildlife and Fish Conservation, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT, United States of America, 2 United States a11111 Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM, United States of America * [email protected] Abstract OPEN ACCESS Loach minnow (Rhinichthys cobitis) and spikedace (Meda fulgida) are legally protected Citation: Dysthe JC, Carim KJ, Paroz YM, McKelvey with the status of Endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act and are endemic to KS, Young MK, Schwartz MK (2016) Quantitative the Gila River basin of Arizona and New Mexico. Efficient and sensitive methods for moni- PCR Assays for Detecting Loach Minnow ’ (Rhinichthys cobitis) and Spikedace (Meda fulgida)in toring these species distributions are critical for prioritizing conservation efforts. We devel- the Southwestern United States. PLoS ONE 11(9): oped quantitative PCR assays for detecting loach minnow and spikedace DNA in e0162200. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162200 environmental samples. Each assay reliably detected low concentrations of target DNA Editor: Michael Hofreiter, University of York, UNITED without detection of non-target species, including other cyprinid fishes with which they co- KINGDOM occur. Received: April 27, 2016 Accepted: August 18, 2016 Published: September 1, 2016 Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all Introduction copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used Loach minnow (Rhinichthys cobitis) and spikedace (Meda fulgida) are cyprinid fishes that were by anyone for any lawful purpose.
  • Rio Grande National Forest Draft Assessment 5 At-Risk Species

    Rio Grande National Forest Draft Assessment 5 At-Risk Species

    Rio Grande National Forest- Draft Assessment 5 Identifying and Assessing At-risk Species Rio Grande National Forest Draft Assessment 5 Identifying and Assessing At-risk Species Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Information Sources and Gaps .............................................................................................................. 2 Existing Forest Plan Direction .............................................................................................................. 2 Scale of Analysis (Area of Influence) ................................................................................................... 4 Assessment 5 Development Process ..................................................................................................... 4 Federally Recognized Species .................................................................................................................. 6 Uncompahgre Fritillary Butterfly ......................................................................................................... 6 Black-footed Ferret ............................................................................................................................... 8 Canada Lynx ....................................................................................................................................... 11 New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse .............................................................................................
  • Rio Costilla Habitat Improvement Project

    Rio Costilla Habitat Improvement Project

    Decision Memo Rio Costilla Habitat Improvement Project USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region Questa Ranger District, Carson National Forest Taos County, New Mexico (Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 14, and 15 of Township 30 North, Range 15 East) Background An interdisciplinary analysis on this project was conducted and is documented in a project record. Source documents from the project record are incorporated by reference throughout this decision memo by showing the document number in brackets [PR #]. Please refer to Appendix A for the project record index. The Questa Ranger District of the Carson National Forest, in partnership with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, proposes to improve in- stream habitat conditions within the Rio Costilla [PR #77, 128]. The Valle Vidal Unit of the Carson National Forest attracts hundreds of anglers annually. The Rio Costilla is the largest stream in the Valle Vidal and a favorite among anglers. Anglers travel to this area in large part to pursue the native Rio Grande cutthroat trout. Long-term operations of the Costilla Reservoir and Dam have channelized the Rio Costilla, which has become inadequate for holding fish during low-flow conditions and through the winter. The Rio Costilla has become shallow and wide in many spots, and future efforts to re-establish self-sustaining populations of Rio Grande cutthroat trout may not be successful without active management. Since 2001, Rio Grande cutthroat trout and other native fish population restoration efforts have been ongoing within the upper Rio Costilla watershed. Restoration efforts in this section of the Rio Costilla have included the construction of the Rio Costilla terminal fish barrier in October 2016.
  • Verde Watershed Fisheries Management Plan Inside This Issue: Beginning in 2013, the Arizona Game and Fish Department Led a Multi-Agency Team #TRENDINGNOW

    Verde Watershed Fisheries Management Plan Inside This Issue: Beginning in 2013, the Arizona Game and Fish Department Led a Multi-Agency Team #TRENDINGNOW

    Volume 1 | Issue 3 | September 2015 Verde Watershed Fisheries Management Plan Inside this issue: Beginning in 2013, the Arizona Game and Fish Department led a multi-agency team #TRENDINGNOW ................. 2 that was tasked with developing a watershed-based, fisheries management plan A New Conservation Tool: the for the entire Verde River watershed that would balance sport fish opportunities Chub CCAA ........................... 2 and native fish conservation. That watershed plan is nearing completion. Apache Trout Research ......... 2 IN THE FIELD ........................ 3 The Verde Watershed Fisheries that resources will typically be be available to the public Management Plan was applied to address the primary online at www.azgfd.gov. Recent and Upcoming AZGFD- developed using the emphasis first. led Activities ........................... 3 The Verde Watershed Department’s new Watershed- Gartersnake and Leopard Frog A Verde Watershed Fisheries Fisheries Management Plan is based Fish Management Recovery Updates ................. 3 Process. This process is Management Plan web map the first plan developed using systematic, data-driven, and was developed as the main this process. The team also BACK AT THE PONDS .......... 4 communication tool for evaluated the effectiveness of addresses socio-political Desert Fish Research and concerns. Department fisheries and the planning process, and Recovery at ARCC ................ 4 aquatic management decisions provided recommendations The team—which included in the Verde River watershed. for future watershed-based state and federal biologists— The web map displays each fish management planning delineated management units individual management unit efforts. and identified a primary and on an interactive map, secondary management allowing users to easily The Verde Watershed emphasis for each unit so that identify high-priority Fisheries Management Plan is more specific prescriptions management units and the in the final stages of review under those categories could primary emphasis for that unit.
  • United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife

    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 02-21-00-F-0029 October 23, 2003 Memorandum To: Field Manager, Tucson Field Office, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona From: Field Supervisor Subject: Biological Opinion: Livestock Grazing on 18 Allotments Along the Middle Gila River Ecosystem This biological opinion responds to your request for 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 original request was dated November 24, 2000, and received in our office November 27, 2000. Due to changes made in the proposed action, your office resubmitted the biological evaluation on March 12, 2001. Thus, formal consultation commenced on that date. At issue are impacts that may result from the Tucson Field Office’s grazing program in portions of the Middle Gila River Ecosystem, Gila and Pinal counties, Arizona. These impacts may affect the following listed species: southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus); cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum); lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae); spikedace (Meda fulgida); and loach minnow (Tiaroga cobitis), and critical habitat designated for the spikedace and loach minnow. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requested our concurrence that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the Arizona hedgehog cactus (Echinocereus triglochidiatus var. arizonicus) and the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). We concur with the BLM’s determinations for these species.
  • LITTLE COLORADO RIVER SPINEDACE, Lepidomeda Vitata RECOVERY PLAN

    LITTLE COLORADO RIVER SPINEDACE, Lepidomeda Vitata RECOVERY PLAN

    DRAFT LITTLE COLORADO RIVER SPINEDACE, Lepidomeda vitata RECOVERY PLAN prepared by: C.O. Minckley U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2 Parker Fishery Resource Office, Parker, Arizona 85344 August 1994 for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico ' DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available, subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approvals of any individuals or agencies (involved in the plan formulation), other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. ...) i ' ,4 , ' P DRAF1- ig l Li &a-liATION8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 199. Little Colorado River spinedace, Lepidomeda vittata Recovery Plan. Phoenix, AZ pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service: 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 301/492-6403 or 1-800-582-3421 The fee for the Plan varies depending on the number of pages of the Plan.
  • Endangered Species

    Endangered Species

    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
  • ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES

    ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES

    ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES Tables STEPHEN T. ROSS University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London © 2013 by The Regents of the University of California ISBN 978-0-520-24945-5 uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 1 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 2 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 1.1 Families Composing 95% of North American Freshwater Fish Species Ranked by the Number of Native Species Number Cumulative Family of species percent Cyprinidae 297 28 Percidae 186 45 Catostomidae 71 51 Poeciliidae 69 58 Ictaluridae 46 62 Goodeidae 45 66 Atherinopsidae 39 70 Salmonidae 38 74 Cyprinodontidae 35 77 Fundulidae 34 80 Centrarchidae 31 83 Cottidae 30 86 Petromyzontidae 21 88 Cichlidae 16 89 Clupeidae 10 90 Eleotridae 10 91 Acipenseridae 8 92 Osmeridae 6 92 Elassomatidae 6 93 Gobiidae 6 93 Amblyopsidae 6 94 Pimelodidae 6 94 Gasterosteidae 5 95 source: Compiled primarily from Mayden (1992), Nelson et al. (2004), and Miller and Norris (2005). uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 3 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 3.1 Biogeographic Relationships of Species from a Sample of Fishes from the Ouachita River, Arkansas, at the Confl uence with the Little Missouri River (Ross, pers. observ.) Origin/ Pre- Pleistocene Taxa distribution Source Highland Stoneroller, Campostoma spadiceum 2 Mayden 1987a; Blum et al. 2008; Cashner et al. 2010 Blacktail Shiner, Cyprinella venusta 3 Mayden 1987a Steelcolor Shiner, Cyprinella whipplei 1 Mayden 1987a Redfi n Shiner, Lythrurus umbratilis 4 Mayden 1987a Bigeye Shiner, Notropis boops 1 Wiley and Mayden 1985; Mayden 1987a Bullhead Minnow, Pimephales vigilax 4 Mayden 1987a Mountain Madtom, Noturus eleutherus 2a Mayden 1985, 1987a Creole Darter, Etheostoma collettei 2a Mayden 1985 Orangebelly Darter, Etheostoma radiosum 2a Page 1983; Mayden 1985, 1987a Speckled Darter, Etheostoma stigmaeum 3 Page 1983; Simon 1997 Redspot Darter, Etheostoma artesiae 3 Mayden 1985; Piller et al.
  • Parker Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan

    Parker Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan

    Parker Fisheries Resource Office Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan Little Colorado River Spinedace Lepidomeda vittata Recovery Plan prepared by: C. 0. Minckley U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Parker Fishery Resource Office, Parker, Arizona 85344 October 1997 for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico Approved: ~~~ector Regi Date: r~IAN 09 1998 Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions believed necessary to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available, subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the stakeholders involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approvals ofany individuals or agencies (involved in the plan formulation), other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position ofthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion ofrecovery tasks. Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan LITERATURE CITATION U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Little Colorado River spinedace, Lepido-meda vittata Recovery Plan. Albuquerque NM. 51 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service: 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 301/492-6403 or 800/582-3421 Fees charged for Recovery Plans vary depending on the number of Plans requested.
  • Comparison of Electrofishing Fish Surveys and Angler Observation on Three Reaches of the Upper Rio Grande Barry Weinstock

    Comparison of Electrofishing Fish Surveys and Angler Observation on Three Reaches of the Upper Rio Grande Barry Weinstock

    University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository Water Resources Professional Project Reports Water Resources 2014 Comparison of Electrofishing Fish Surveys and Angler Observation on Three Reaches of the Upper Rio Grande Barry Weinstock Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/wr_sp Recommended Citation Weinstock, Barry. "Comparison of Electrofishing Fish Surveys and Angler Observation on Three Reaches of the Upper Rio Grande." (2014). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/wr_sp/107 This Presentation is brought to you for free and open access by the Water Resources at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Water Resources Professional Project Reports by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Comparison of Electrofishing Fish Surveys and Angler Observation on Three Reaches of the Upper Rio Grande by Barry Weinstock Committee Dr. Bruce M. Thomson, Chair Dr. William M. Fleming Eric Frey A Professional Project Proposal Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of Master of Water Resources, Water Resources Program and Master Community and Regional Planning, School of Architecture and Planning The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico July 2014 i Committee Approval The Master of Water Resources and Master of Community and Regional Planning Professional Project Report of Barry Weinstock, entitled Comparison of Electrofishing Fish Surveys and Angler Observation on Three Reaches of the Upper Rio Grande, is approved by the committee: ________________________________________ ____________________ Chair Date ________________________________________ ____________________ ________________________________________ ____________________ ________________________________________ ____________________ ________________________________________ ____________________ i Acknowledgements I would like to thank my committee. Dr. Bruce Thomson and Dr.