DOCSLIB.ORG

United States Department of the Interior U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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). We concur with your determination on the flycatcher and provide our rationale in Appendix A. This biological opinion (Opinion) replaces the 2008 Final Biological Opinion on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam (USFWS 2008a, consultation number 22410-1993-F-R1 and the court ordered supplements to that opinion). This Opinion is based on information provided in Reclamation’s January and July BAs biological assessments on HFE Releases and NNFC, the draft environmental assessment on HFE Releases and NNFC, telephone conversations and meetings between our staff, and other sources of information found in the administrative record supporting this Opinion. All other aspects of the proposed action remain the same as described in the Environmental Assessments (EA) and BAs. Literature cited in this biological opinion is not a complete bibliography of all literature available on the species of concern. A complete 2 administrative record of this consultation is on file at this office. The proposed action is the continued operation of Glen Canyon Dam under MLFF with the inclusion of a protocol for high- flow experimental releases from Glen Canyon Dam and non-native fish control for the 10-year period, 2011 through 2020. It is the FWS's biological opinion that the action, as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the humpback chub, razorback sucker, or Kanab ambersnail and is not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat for razorback sucker or humpback chub. A Table of Contents is provided below. Table of Contents CONSULTATION HISTORY ....................................................................................................... 3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................................... 5 TABLE 1. GLEN CANYON DAM RELEASE CONSTRAINTS AS DEFINED BY RECLAMATION IN THE 1996 RECORD OF DECISION (RECLAMATION 1996). ............. 10 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE............................................................................................ 40 A. Status of the species and critical habitat within the action area .................................... 42 B. Factors affecting species’ environment within the action area ..................................... 73 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ................................................................................................... 76 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...................................................................................................... 98 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 99 AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE .......................................................................................... 110 EFFECT OF THE TAKE............................................................................................................ 112 3 Consultation history January 14, 2011 Reclamation submitted a BA and requested initiation of formal consultation on the Development and Implementation of a Protocol for High-Flow Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, 2011-2020. January 28, 2011 Reclamation submitted a BA, Draft EA, and requested informal consultation on implementation of Non-native Fish Control downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, 2011-2020. March 17, 2011 FWS submitted separate comments for the following: Draft EA for Development and Implementation of a Protocol for High-Flow Experimental Releases from Glen Canyon Dam (HFE Protocol), Arizona, 2011-2020; and Draft EA for Non-native Fish Control Downstream from Glen Canyon Dam (Non-native Fish Control). These reviews provided input on biological analysis and conservation needs for humpback chub, non-listed native species, and other fish and wildlife resources. June 6, 2011 The FWS provided additional comments (email memorandum) for continuing issues to be addressed. July 18, 2011 Reclamation submitted a Supplement to the BA responding to input received from, among others, FWS (as described above), and requested that the proposed action be modified to include: 1. A fuller description clarifying baseline operations that would form the basis for HFE implementation (the MLFF alternative as described in the 1995 Environmental Impact Statement and adopted in the 1996 ROD) for the 10-year period from 2011-2020. 2. Non-native fish control in the Little Colorado River (LCR) reach only when the number of adult humpback chub falls below 7,000. 3. A request that the proposed HFE protocol, non-native fish control (two separate BAs), and continued ROD operations (2011-2020) be evaluated in a single biological opinion. July 26, 2011 - FWS sent a memo to Reclamation acknowledging the request for the modified proposed action (re: non-native fish control), and the request for a single biological opinion and expedited consultation. 4 August 24, 2011 and August 25, 2011 Informal meetings between Reclamation and the FWS in Phoenix, Arizona concerning the BAs for Non-native Control and High Flow Experiment. Notes compiled by Reclamation staff. August 31, 2011 Conference call between Reclamation and FWS with notes by Reclamation staff. September 2, 2011 Conference call between Reclamation, FWS, National Park Service (NPS), and Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center (GCMRC) to discuss the scientific merits of some potential changes to the proposed action. September 6 - 8, 2011 FWS participated in the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Meeting in Phoenix along with Federal, State, Tribal, and private partners. FWS staffs discuss with meeting attendees the ongoing section 7 consultation. October 4, 2011 Reclamation and FWS agree to general conservation measures for the draft biological opinion. Reclamation requests final Opinion by the end of November. October 27, 2011 Reclamation sent revised Conservation Measures to FWS. November 8, 2011 and November 18, 2011 Conference calls with DOI, Reclamation, and FWS to review status of draft Opinion. Some revisions of conservation measures were provided. November 25, 2011 FWS sent draft biological opinion to Reclamation for agency review. November 30, 2011 Reclamation provides comments on the draft Opinion and requests review of a second draft. December 6, 2011 Second revised draft Opinion provided to Reclamation for review. December 8, 2011 Reclamation responded to second draft Opinion. 5 December 14, 2011 Third draft Opinion provided to Reclamation for review. December 20, 2011 Conference call between FWS and Reclamation. Reclamation provides comments on the third draft document. December 21, 2011 and December 22, 2011 Reclamation and FWS discuss final draft biological opinion. BIOLOGICAL OPINION DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action is the continued operation of Glen Canyon Dam under MLFF with the inclusion of a protocol for high-flow experimental releases from Glen Canyon Dam and non- native fish control for the 10-year period, 2011 through 2020. The 10-year period for the proposed action is based on the experimental development of the high-flow protocol, allowing a sufficient period of time to assess the long-term effects of repeated high-flow releases as a potential action to benefit downstream resources. The Department is also undertaking an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process to evaluate the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) which will be addressed as a separate Federal action. HFEs The proposed action is intended to meet the need for high-flow experimental releases during limited periods of the year when large amounts of sand from tributary inputs are likely to have accumulated in the channel of the Colorado River. HFEs restore sand bars in Grand Canyon which are thought to provide backwaters that are beneficial to humpback chub. Annual and
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]
  • Advances in Genetic Research Reveal Kanab Ambersnail Not a Distinct Subspecies Subspecies Removed from Endangered Species Act List
    News Release U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Missouri and Upper Colorado Basin Region 134 Union Boulevard Lakewood, Colorado 80228 For Immediate Release June 17, 2021 Contact: Joe Szuszwalak, [email protected], 303-236-4336 Advances in Genetic Research Reveal Kanab Ambersnail Not a Distinct Subspecies Subspecies removed from Endangered Species Act list Western Oxyloma sp. from Vasey's Paradise, Grand Canyon, AZ Photo credit: Jeff Sorenson, AZ Game and Fish DENVER — The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is announcing today the publication of a final rule to remove the Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis) from the Endangered Species Act list of threatened and endangered species. This determination follows a review of the best available science, which has indicated the Kanab ambersnail is not a distinct subspecies and therefore cannot be listed as an entity under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This action follows the publication of the proposed rule on January 6, 2020. The Kanab ambersnail was initially listed as endangered in 1991. It is a small snail in the Succineidae family, typically inhabiting marshes and other wetlands watered by springs and seeps at the base of sandstone or limestone cliffs. Three populations have been known to the Service, one in Three Lakes, UT, and in Vasey’s Paradise and Upper Elves Canyon, AZ. In 2013 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published a comprehensive, peer-reviewed, comparative genetic and morphological study of 11 populations of ambersnails (Oxyloma) in Utah and Arizona, including the Kanab ambersnail. USGS analyzed genetics, shell morphology, and reproductive soft tissue anatomy and found that the subspecies known as Kanab ambersnail is not a distinct subspecies.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Sustainability Analysis of the Kaibab National Forest
    Ecological Sustainability Analysis of the Kaibab National Forest: Species Diversity Report Version 1.2.5 Including edits responding to comments on version 1.2 Prepared by: Mikele Painter and Valerie Stein Foster Kaibab National Forest For: Kaibab National Forest Plan Revision Analysis 29 June 2008 SDR version 1.2.5 29 June 2008 Table of Contents Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 PART I: Species Diversity .............................................................................................................. 1 Species Diversity Database and Forest Planning Species........................................................... 1 Criteria .................................................................................................................................... 2 Assessment Sources ................................................................................................................ 3 Screening Results .................................................................................................................... 4 Habitat Associations and Initial Species Groups ........................................................................ 8 Species associated with ecosystem diversity characteristics of terrestrial vegetation or aquatic systems ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Species Risk Assessment
    Ecological Sustainability Analysis of the Kaibab National Forest: Species Diversity Report Ver. 1.2 Prepared by: Mikele Painter and Valerie Stein Foster Kaibab National Forest For: Kaibab National Forest Plan Revision Analysis 22 December 2008 SpeciesDiversity-Report-ver-1.2.doc 22 December 2008 Table of Contents Table of Contents............................................................................................................................. i Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1 PART I: Species Diversity.............................................................................................................. 1 Species List ................................................................................................................................. 1 Criteria .................................................................................................................................... 2 Assessment Sources................................................................................................................ 3 Screening Results.................................................................................................................... 4 Habitat Associations and Initial Species Groups........................................................................ 8 Species associated with ecosystem diversity characteristics of terrestrial vegetation or aquatic systems ......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Removing the Kanab Ambersnail from the List of Endangered
    Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 2020 / Proposed Rules 487 deemed competitive pursuant to the Incumbent LECs shall unbundle dark ADDRESSES: Comment submission: You competitive market test established fiber transport between any pair of may submit comments by one of the under 49 CFR 69.803; (B) any study area incumbent LEC wire centers except following methods: served by a rate-of-return incumbent where, through application of tier (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal LEC provided that study area is not classifications described in paragraph eRulemaking Portal: http:// included on the list of competitive (d)(3) of this section, where both wire www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, study areas pursuant to the competitive centers defining the route are either Tier enter FWS–R6–ES–2019–0055, which is market test established under 47 CFR 1, Tier 2, or a Tier 3 wire center the docket number for this rulemaking. 61.50; or (C) any census block defined identified on the list of wire centers that Then, click on the Search button. On the as rural by the Census Bureau if being has been found to be within a half mile resulting page, in the Search panel on requested solely to serve residential of alternative fiber pursuant to the the left side of the screen, under the customers. A DS1 loop is a digital local Report and Order on Remand and Document Type heading, click on the loop having a total digital signal speed Memorandum Opinion and Order in Proposed Rule box to locate this of 1.544 megabytes per second.
    [Show full text]
  • Kanab Ambersnail Oxyloma Haydeni Kanabensis
    Kanab ambersnail Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Photo Jeff Sorensen (permission granted). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Field Office – Ecological Services West Valley City, Utah 84119 July 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. GENERAL INFORMATION ......................................................................................................................3 1.1 Purpose of 5-Year Reviews ................................................................................................................3 1.2 Reviewers ............................................................................................................................................3 1.3 Methodology Used to Complete the Review ......................................................................................3 1.4 Background .........................................................................................................................................4 1.4.1 Federal Register Notice Citation Announcing Initiation of This Review..................................4 1.4.2 Listing History ...........................................................................................................................4 1.4.3 Review History ..........................................................................................................................4 1.4.4 Species’ Recovery Priority Number at Start of 5-year Review .................................................4 1.4.5 Recovery Plan ............................................................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Concerning the Endangered Kanab Ambersnail (Oxyloma Haydeni Kanabense) in Arizona and Utah
    Anatomical and Genetic Variation of Western Oxyloma (Pulmonata: Succineidae) Concerning the Endangered Kanab Ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni kanabense) in Arizona and Utah Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5164 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Foreground photograph: Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni kanabense). Background photograph: Vasey’s Paradise waterfalls, Colorado River, Arizona. Photograph taken by Jeff Sorensen, Arizona Game and Fish Department. Anatomical and Genetic Variation of Western Oxyloma (Pulmonata: Succineidae) Concerning the Endangered Kanab Ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni kanabense) in Arizona and Utah By Melanie Culver, Hans-Werner Herrmann, Mark Miller, Barry Roth, and Jeff Sorenson Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5164 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2013 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Opinion for the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan, Coconino County, Arizona
    United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 9828 N. 31st Avenue, C3 Phoenix, Arizona 85051-2517 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 Fax: (602) 242-2513 In reply refer to: AESO/SE 02EAAZ00-2012-F-0059 02EAAZ00-2014-CPA-0029 November 28, 2016 Memorandum To: Regional Director, Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Regional Office, Salt Lake City, Utah From: Field Supervisor, Arizona Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Subject: Biological Opinion for the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan, Coconino County, Arizona Thank you for your request for formal consultation/conference 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 (Act). Your request was dated August 16, 2016, and received by us via electronic mail the same day. At issue are impacts that may result from the proposed Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) located in Coconino County, Arizona. The proposed action may affect the endangered humpback chub (Gila cypha) and its critical habitat, the endangered razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) and its critical habitat, and the endangered Kanab ambersnail (Oxyloma kanabensis). In your memorandum, you requested our concurrence that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) and the endangered Yuma Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus yumanensis). We concur with your determinations. The basis for our concurrences is found in Appendix A. This biological opinion (BO) replaces the 2008 Final Biological Opinion on the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam (USFWS 2008, 2009, consultation number 22410-1993-F-167 and the court ordered supplements to that opinion, 22410-1993-F-167-R1).
    [Show full text]
  • Removing the Kanab Ambersnail From
    Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 119 / Thursday, June 24, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 33137 include the OMB Control Number, Commission. If the Commission DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 3060–0298, in your correspondence. requests respondents to submit The Commission will also accept your information which respondents believe Fish and Wildlife Service comments via email at [email protected]. is confidential, respondents may request To request materials in accessible confidential treatment of such 50 CFR Part 17 formats for people with disabilities information under 47 CFR 0.459 of the [Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2019–0055; (Braille, large print, electronic files, Commission’s rules. FF09E22000 FXES11130900000 201] audio format), send an email to fcc504@ fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Privacy Act: No impact(s). RIN 1018–BD49 Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) Needs and Uses: Sections 201, 202, 418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 203, 204 and 205 of the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (TTY). Communications Act of 1934, (Act) as and Plants; Removing the Kanab amended, 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 203, 204 Ambersnail From the List of Synopsis and 205, require that common carriers Endangered and Threatened Wildlife As required by the Paperwork establish just and reasonable charges, AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), practices, and regulations, which must the FCC is notifying the public that it Interior. be filed with the Commission to ACTION: Final rule. received final OMB approval on May 13, determine whether such schedules are 2021, for the information collection just, reasonable and not unduly SUMMARY: We, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Late Cenozoic Molluscan Faunas from the High Plains
    Late Cenozoic Molluscan Faunas From the High Plains GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 337 Late Cenozoic Molluscan Faunas From the His:h Plains By DWIGHT W. TAYLOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 337 Description of mo Husks from nine Pliocene and Pleistocene faunas of the High Plains region and interpretation of their stratigraphic and ecologic significance UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1960 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRED A. SEATON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director The U.S. Geological Survey Library has cataloged this publication as follows : Taylor, Dwight Willard, 1932- Late Ceiiozoic molluscan faunas from the High Plains. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1959. iv, 94 p. illus., 4 plates, tables. 30 cm. (U.S. Geological Survey. Professional paper 337) "Description of mollusks from nine Pliocene and Pleistocene faunas of the High Plains region and interpretation of their stratigraphic and ecologic significance." Bibliography: p. 83-86. 1. Mollusks, Fossil. 2. Paleontology Cenozoic. 3. Paleontology U.S. High Plains region. I. Title. (Series) For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.C. - Price 31 (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Page Abstract- __________________________________________ 1 Sanders local fauna____________--_--_-_--_______ 40 Introduction _______________________________________ 1 Deer Park local fauna-__________________________ 41 Acknowledgments. _ __________________________________ 2 Recent mollusks from
    [Show full text]
  • Kanab Ambersnail 2003 Progress Report: Analysis of Habitat Data, Status of Translocated Populations, and Additional Habitat Surveys
    NON RECORD NON LIBRARY KANABAMBERSNAIL 2003 PROGRESS REPORT: ANALYSISOF HABITAT DATA, STATUS OF TRANSLOCATED POPULATIONS, ANDADDITIONAL HABITAT SURVEYS JeffA. Sorensen, Nongame Program Manager Clay B. Nelson, Nongame Wildlife Specialist Darren K. Bolen, Nongame Wildlife Specialist Nongame Branch, Wildlife Management Division ArizonaGame and Fish Department Technical Report 220 Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Program Chief: Terry B. Johnson Arizona Game and Fish Department 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399 September 2003 CIVIL RIGHTS AND DIVERSITY COMPLIANCE The Arizona Game and Fish Commission receives federal financial assistance in SportFish and Wildlife Restoration. Under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, or disability. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire furtherinformation please write to: Arizona Game and Fish Department Officeof the Deputy Director, DOHQ 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399 and The Officefor Diversity and Civil Rights U.S. Fish and WildlifeService 4040 North FairfaxDrive, Room 300 Arlington, Virginia 22203 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMPLIANCE The Arizona Game and Fish Department complies with all provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This document is available in alternative format by contacting the Arizona Game and Fish Department, Office of the Deputy Director at the address listed above or by calling (602) 789-3290 or TTY 1-800-367-8939.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona's State Wildlife Action Plan: 2012-2022
    ARIZONA’S STATE WILDLIFE ACTION PLAN: 2012 - 2022 Arizona Game and Fish Department 5000 West Carefree Highway Phoenix, Arizona 85086-5000 16 May 2012 CIVIL RIGHTS AND DIVERSITY COMPLIANCE The Arizona Game and Fish Commission receives federal financial assistance in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration. Under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, or disability. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information please write to: Arizona Game and Fish Department Office of the Deputy Director, DOHQ 5000 W Carefree Hwy Phoenix, Arizona 85086 and The Office for Diversity and Civil Rights U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4040 North Fairfax Drive, Room 300 Arlington, Virginia 22203 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMPLIANCE The Arizona Game and Fish Department complies with all provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This document is available in alternative format by contacting the Arizona Game and Fish Department, Office of the Deputy Director at the address listed above or by calling (623) 236-7290 or TTY 1-800-367-8939. RECOMMENDED CITATION Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2012. Arizona’s State Wildlife Action Plan: 2012-2022. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. PROJECT FUNDING Funding for the development of this strategic plan was provided by a State Wildlife Grant Program Planning Grant and the Arizona Heritage Fund.
    [Show full text]