DOCSLIB.ORG

Where Are the Facts? Water Delivered by District in 2011

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Where Are the Facts? Water Delivered by District in 2011 Spring 2012 Kolob Reservoir Water for Today and Tomorrow • Conservation Every Day™ Manager’s Message — Drought conditions extremely likely this summer Where are the The National Oceanic and 673-3617 or go to the District’s website value of approximately $101 million. Facts? Atmospheric Association has issued a for conservation tips. (wcwcd.org/ The QCP was a $30 million project. statement that La Niña is still with us conservation) About 30% of the county’s taxable value Check out our new and may even strengthen. This particular All of us saving several gallons was bonded so this project could be webpage at wcwcd.org weather pattern usually means that of water will, in the long run, save built. Washington County residents went southern Utah will experience drought thousands of gallons of water. The Water to the polls and over 90% voted in favor conditions. Local reservoirs will do their District’s maxim says it this way: “Water of the QCP bond. See our blog for job to make sure we have the water we for Today and Tomorrow – Conservation Today, close to 150,000 people reside information about water need, but water levels will drop. Every Day.” in Washington County and the county’s projects and water issues Even though we had a record wet year taxable property value is approximately wcwcd.org/blog in 2011, that does not mean we can be Yesterday’s canals are $10 billion. We are able to borrow wasteful. It takes years to recover from today’s pipelines money for the important projects that we the impacts of even a short-term drought. The history of Washington County need to build to continue with efficient Follow us at twitter at Knowing how climate will change is filled with accounts of ditches being management of our water resources, WATERDIST from one year to the next helps us in dug, wells being drilled, springs being such as the Ash Creek and Warner managing our water supply. I would developed and surface water being Valley projects. If the Lake Powell ask you to help us manage the water we diverted. Pipeline Project were being built today, have by being water-wise this summer. The years of human toil required and our portion would cost about 10% of Become familiar with the minimum the meager finances available for water Washington County’s current taxable amount of water your landscape needs projects such as the La Verkin and property value which is 20% less than in Water delivered by to survive and do not use any more than Hurricane canals were often sources of 1982. District in 2011 that. Be sure to fix any leaks you may discouragement to the early pioneers. In 1982, the county needed water find in your home or in your outdoor But the need for water overshadowed all storage. In the 21st century, the county irrigation system. If you need to replace other needs if they were to have a life needs to continue to diversify its water Culinary plants, do so with a drought-resistant in the southwest. With recent estimates portfolio. The District is pursuing many water variety. Conserving our water means showing growth in Washington County diversified approaches to maintain a 6.4 billion you at 2.6% per year, the need for a reliable balanced water resource supply, such gallons • use car washes to clean your car (they water supply is still strong. as reservoirs, wells, ground water recycle their water) Twenty years after the Water District recharge, storage facilities, enhanced • use a broom rather than a hose to was created (November 28, 1962), the use of untreated water for irrigation and, Secondary water clean off your patio, and first major water storage facility was always, conservation to stretch those 26 billion gallons • water within the time-of-day watering built - the Quail Creek Project (QCP). supplies as far as they can go. With ordinances and then only when the When the QCP was in the planning growth on the rebound, there is no doubt wind is not blowing. process in the early 1980s, only 30,000 that all of these efforts will be necessary If you have questions, call people resided in Washington County to meet our reasonably anticipated our conservation coordinator at and the county had a taxable property demands for the foreseeable future. Without the means to adequately fund water development, projects like Quail Creek Reservoir would never have been built. Photo: Doug Wilson What would happen if property taxes were denied to water districts? By Ron Thompson, General Manager tax revenues. The rating could drop be placed on the current user. With citizens across the board – no one The Utah Legislature adopted the several points as low as BBB without property taxes, present and future would be exempt from feeling the Water Conservancy Act in 1941. This property tax revenues, thereby property owners all share in the pinch. Impacts include, but would not Act created water conservancy districts increasing interest costs on projects benefits of the project without being be limited to: for the purpose of developing water – costs which must be passed on to overwhelmed by the cost. Since • schools, churches and municipalities resources in their service area. consumers. these benefits will apply to property could be hit with a 147% increase in In order to fund water development, • Public safety – without property tax that will be developed in the future, their water bills the districts were authorized to levy income, the cost of water used to it is fair that one component of the • water rates may increase by 147% property taxes, with limitations set by fight fires, for instance, would have District’s portfolio comes from for the average citizen, and the legislature as to tax rates. Today, to be paid by the affected home/ property taxes. • owners of undeveloped land would property taxes, water rates and impact business/land owner. Property taxes Water is a public good and a resource pay nothing, even though their fees provide revenue sources assisting ensure that money is reserved in a we cannot live without. Funds need to property would benefit from the each district with a portfolio of funds special fund to address emergencies be available so that Washington County resources paid for through user fees. necessary to keep up with water and ensure that water is available for residents will always have access to The following chart summarizes the demand. public safety. quality water. If property taxes were estimated cost increases to individuals, During the 2012 legislative session, • Reasonable costs - if a $10 million not forthcoming, funding would have institutions and businesses if the Senate Bill 78 was introduced that dollar project is built to provide water to come from exorbitantly high water District was no longer able to collect could have effectively disallowed the for 2,000 people and the annual cost rates, user fees and impact fees. property tax revenues to pay for its collection of property taxes by the to operate the project is $100,000, The effects of higher fees and rates current actions to provide and protect Washington County Water Conservancy the entire cost of the project cannot would impact Washington County water resources. District and Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District. If a bill like this Property Tax Water Rates Total Cost Before $50 $344 $394 Property assessed at is enacted, it would essentially eradicate 2 Person Residency $91,300. Actual 2011 usage a stable source of funding and diminish (Primary Home) After $0 $927 $927 the ability of water districts to provide: charges. Before $91 $344 $435 Using data from above • a reliable water supply 2 Person Residency without primary residency tax • water conservation education (Second Home) After $0 $927 $927 • watershed protection break. • water to fight fires and provide for Before $0 $3,455 $3,455 Using 2011 usage charges of School public safety and After $0 $9,311 $9,311 an actual school. • endangered species protection. Before $0 $8,686 $8,686 Using 2011 usage charges of Church It would also affect: After $0 $23,406 $23,406 an actual church. • Bond ratings – the District’s current Before $1,334 $9,969 $11,304 Using 2011 usage charges bond rating is AA+, based in part on Restaurant and property value of an the stability provided by property After $0 $26,865 $26,865 actual restaurant. District has long history of protecting native fish species By Barbara Hjelle, that collaboration with wildlife agencies survival of these species. woundfin reproduction. Woundfin Associate General Manager would be the only way to produce Due to the wide variation in water population was 400% greater than One of the biggest challenges in meaningful results. Consequently, available from year to year and many it was in 2007. water management is making sure that the District began other variables of a The District and the Virgin River all competing demands for water are working with state Woundfin survival desert ecosystem, in Program continue their cooperative met. Since the District was established and federal wildlife depends upon any given year there efforts to fifty years ago, it has worked to agencies to develop have been successes • eradicate invasive non-native ensure that water is available for a viable program. In sufficient flow and failures in the quest species from our rivers and streams domestic, industrial, agricultural and 2001, after many within the river, to improve habitat for • enhance fish habitat recreational use while at the same time years of negotiations, especially during all native fishes and to • ensure that our river system ensuring there is enough water for the the Virgin River hot summer save the endangered remains healthy, and environment and local wildlife.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Plan
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Revised RECOVERY PLAN for the Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) Original Plan Approved: November 1993 Prepared by: Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Coordinator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office Billings, Montana For Mountain-Prairie Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Denver, CO January 2014 DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed necessary to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Plans are reviewed by the public and subject to additional peer review before they are adopted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Objectives will only be attained and funds expended contingent upon appropriations, priorities, and other budgetary constraints. Recovery plans do not obligate other parties to undertake specific tasks. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval 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. Copies of all documents reviewed in development of the plan are available in the administrative record, located at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, Billings, Montana.
    [Show full text]
  • (Gila Elegans) (BONY) Basic Conceptual Ecological Model for the Lower Colorado River
    Bonytail (Gila elegans) (BONY) Basic Conceptual Ecological Model for the Lower Colorado River 2018 Updates 1. Eggs & Early Larvae G1-2 R5-1 S1-2 5. Spawning 2. Fry & Adults Juveniles S5-4 G2-4 G4-4 P4-5 S2-4 S4-4 4. Established Adults G3-4 3. Newly- S3-4 Stocked SHR Adults Photo courtesy of the Bureau of Reclamation March 2019 Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Steering Committee Members Federal Participant Group California Participant Group Bureau of Reclamation California Department of Fish and Wildlife U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service City of Needles National Park Service Coachella Valley Water District Bureau of Land Management Colorado River Board of California Bureau of Indian Affairs Bard Water District Western Area Power Administration Imperial Irrigation District Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Palo Verde Irrigation District Arizona Participant Group San Diego County Water Authority Southern California Edison Company Arizona Department of Water Resources Southern California Public Power Authority Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern Arizona Game and Fish Department California Arizona Power Authority Central Arizona Water Conservation District Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District Nevada Participant Group City of Bullhead City City of Lake Havasu City Colorado River Commission of Nevada City of Mesa Nevada Department of Wildlife City of Somerton Southern Nevada Water Authority City of Yuma Colorado River Commission Power Users Electrical District
    [Show full text]
  • US Fish & Wildlife Service Revised
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Revised RECOVERY PLAN for the Pallid Sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) Original Plan Approved: November 1993 Prepared by: Pallid Sturgeon Recovery Coordinator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office Billings, Montana For Mountain-Prairie Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Denver, CO January 2014 DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed necessary to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Plans are reviewed by the public and subject to additional peer review before they are adopted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Objectives will only be attained and funds expended contingent upon appropriations, priorities, and other budgetary constraints. Recovery plans do not obligate other parties to undertake specific tasks. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval 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. Copies of all documents reviewed in development of the plan are available in the administrative record, located at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Montana Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office, Billings, Montana.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution, Demise, and Restoration of the Native Fishes of the Lower Colorado River by Brent R
    The evolution, demise, and restoration of the native fishes of the lower Colorado River By Brent R. Campos ABSTRACT Throughout the last century, the Colorado River’s natural flow regime was drastically altered by the infrastructure of water regulation. The once dramatic seasonal and annual variations in water flows, which shaped the life histories and unique morphologies of its native fishes, have been subdued by the many impoundments throughout the river. Bluehead sucker, flannelmouth sucker, speckled dace, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnnow, humpback chub and razorback sucker are fish native to the Colorado River Basin, the latter four being critically endangered endemics. The native fish face two major threats: (1) habitat degradation, caused by cold, sediment-starved, and relatively flat-lined water releases, and (2) nonnative fishes, introduced since the late 1800s. Both of these threats work together in precluding the recruitment of the natives. The cold, clear, hypolimnetic releases degrade the natives’ backwater rearing habitat and cause near-zero growth rates in their young-of-year offspring, while the introduced fishes predate upon the young-of-year and juveniles. The current and proposed management strategies for restoring and/or perpetuating the fish native to the mainstem of the lower Colorado River include experimental flows, mimicking the natural flow regime, tailwater warming, nonnative fish control, and artificially-maintained populations. A holistic, ecosystem-based approach, using a combination of these management options, will likely be needed if the sustainable recovery of the lower Colorado River’s native fishes is ever to be achieved. INTRODUCTION The many dams impeding the natural flow of water on the Colorado River and its tributaries make the Colorado River Basin one of the most altered watersheds in the world (Fradkin 1981).
    [Show full text]
  • August 1979, Vol
    August 1979, Vol. IV, No. 8 ENDANGERED SPECIES W TECHNICAL BULLETIN Department of the Interior • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service • Endangered Species Program, Washington, D.C. 20240 Critical Habitat for Three Fishes Reproposed; Withdrawn A reproposal of Critical Habitat for three fishes in Alabama and Ten- nessee will be withdrawn by the Ser- vice because of procedural errors in the nature of the public meeting and the inadequate availability of informa- tion concerning economic considera- tions. The reproposal was published in the July 27, 1979, Federal Register, and the subsequent meetings were held August 28-30. The proposed listing for the spring pygmy sunfish (Elassoma sp.) and the pygmy sculpin (Cottus pygmaeus) will be automatically with- drawn on November 29,1979, two years after its initial publication. The pro- posed listing for the Barrens topmin- now (Fundulus sp.) will be withdrawn on December 30, 1979, also two years U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Photo after publication. A new proposal will Current knowledge suggests that the agent that extirpated the brown pelican from be made only if new information be- Louisiana would have been equally effective regardless of the population size. comes available. Recovery Planned for LIght-Footed Clapper Rail, Woundfin, Eastern Brown Pelican The Service approved three recovery new habitat. These activities will aid in consists of a marsh environment with plans in July; one for the light-footed achieving the plan's objective of in- cordgrass or pickleweed for nesting clapper rail {Rallus longirostris creasing the rail's breeding population and escape cover, a supply of crabs, levipes), a California bird Endangered to at least 400 pairs.
    [Show full text]
  • Guam Marine Biosecurity Action Plan
    GuamMarine Biosecurity Action Plan September 2014 This Marine Biosecurity Action Plan was prepared by the University of Guam Center for Island Sustainability under award NA11NOS4820007 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coral Reef Conservation Program, as administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management and the Bureau of Statistics and Plans, Guam Coastal Management Program. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Guam Marine Biosecurity Action Plan Author: Roxanna Miller First Released in Fall 2014 About this Document The Guam Marine Biosecurity Plan was created by the University of Guam’s Center for Island Sustainability under award NA11NOS4820007 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coral Reef Conservation Program, as administered by the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management and the Bureau of Statistics and Plans, Guam Coastal Management Program. Information and recommendations within this document came through the collaboration of a variety of both local and federal agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP), the University of Guam (UOG), the Guam Department of Agriculture’s Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources (DAWR), the United States Coast Guard (USCG), the Port Authority of Guam, the National Park Service
    [Show full text]
  • Table 7: Species Changing IUCN Red List Status (2012-2013)
    IUCN Red List version 2013.2: Table 7 Last Updated: 25 November 2013 Table 7: Species changing IUCN Red List Status (2012-2013) Published listings of a species' status may change for a variety of reasons (genuine improvement or deterioration in status; new information being available that was not known at the time of the previous assessment; taxonomic changes; corrections to mistakes made in previous assessments, etc. To help Red List users interpret the changes between the Red List updates, a summary of species that have changed category between 2012 (IUCN Red List version 2012.2) and 2013 (IUCN Red List version 2013.2) and the reasons for these changes is provided in the table below. IUCN Red List Categories: EX - Extinct, EW - Extinct in the Wild, CR - Critically Endangered, EN - Endangered, VU - Vulnerable, LR/cd - Lower Risk/conservation dependent, NT - Near Threatened (includes LR/nt - Lower Risk/near threatened), DD - Data Deficient, LC - Least Concern (includes LR/lc - Lower Risk, least concern). Reasons for change: G - Genuine status change (genuine improvement or deterioration in the species' status); N - Non-genuine status change (i.e., status changes due to new information, improved knowledge of the criteria, incorrect data used previously, taxonomic revision, etc.) IUCN Red List IUCN Red Reason for Red List Scientific name Common name (2012) List (2013) change version Category Category MAMMALS Nycticebus javanicus Javan Slow Loris EN CR N 2013.2 Okapia johnstoni Okapi NT EN N 2013.2 Pteropus niger Greater Mascarene Flying
    [Show full text]
  • Population of These Species Are Known from the Virgin River in Utah, Arizona And
    \, I DRAFT EXECUTIVE ST]MMARY OF THE RECOVERY PLAN FOR TRE WOI]NDFIN ATID VIRGIN RIVER ROI'NDTAIL CHI'B Current Status: The woundfin and roundtail chub are listed as endangered. One population of these species are known from the Virgin River in Utah, Arizona and Nevada. Historically, the woundfin was collected in the Salt River near Tempe' Arizona; at the mouth of the Gila River near Yuma, Arizona; in the colorado River near Yuma, Arizona; in the Virgin River in Nevada, Arizona, and Utah and in LaVerkin Creek, a tributary to the Virgin River in Utah (Gilbert and Scofield 1898; Snyder 1915; Miller and Hubbs I960; Cross I975). The Virgin River roundtail chub has been collected from the Virgin River in Utah, Arizona and Nevada and from the Moapa River, a tributary to the Virgin River in Nevada. Habitat Requirernents and Limitins Factors: Woundfin are most often collected in run and quiet water habitats with sand substrates. Roundtail chubs are most often collected in deep run or pools associated instream cover. Alteration of flow regimes, decreasedwat.er quality and introduction of exotic species are the principal threats. Recovery Obiectives: Delisting Recovery Criteria: The woundfin and roundtail chub current listing of endangered will be recommended for threatened status when: (l) present Virgin River habitat- essential to survival of all life stages are assured; (2) when present marginal Virgin River habitat is upgraded to maintain all life stages; and (3) when an DRAFT additional population is established in a separate stream within historic range in which adequate habitat for all life stages of woundfin are assured.
    [Show full text]
  • Thermal Tolerances and Preferences of Fishes of the Virgin River System (Utah, Arizona, Nevada)
    Publications (WR) Water Resources 10-1987 Thermal tolerances and preferences of fishes of the Virgin River system (Utah, Arizona, Nevada) James E. Deacon University of Nevada, Las Vegas Paul B. Schumann University of California School of Public Health, Los Angeles Edward L. Stuenkel University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/water_pubs Part of the Aquaculture and Fisheries Commons, Desert Ecology Commons, Environmental Monitoring Commons, Fresh Water Studies Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons, Sustainability Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Repository Citation Deacon, J. E., Schumann, P. B., Stuenkel, E. L. (1987). Thermal tolerances and preferences of fishes of the Virgin River system (Utah, Arizona, Nevada). Great Basin Naturalist, 47(4), 538-546. Available at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/water_pubs/38 This Article is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Article in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This Article has been accepted for inclusion in Publications (WR) by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THERMAL TOLERANCES AND PREFERENCES OF FISHES OF THE VIRGIN RIVER SYSTEM (UTAH, ARIZONA, NEVADA) James E.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 202-1 Chapter NR 27 ENDANGERED SPECIES NR 27.01 Scope and applicability NR 27.05 Permits for transportation of NR 27.02 Definitions endangered species NR 27.03 Department list NR 27.04 Revision of Wisconsin en- NR 27.06 Exceptions to permit require- dangered species list ments History: Chapter NR 27 as it existed on September 30, 1975 was repealed and a new chapter NR 27 was created effective October 1, 1975. NR 27.01 Scope and applicability. This chapter contain rules necessary to implement the Wisconsin Endangered Species Act of 1971 (section 29.415, Wis. Stats.). The rules in this chapter govern the taking, transportation, possession, processing or sale within this state of any fish or wildlife specified by the department's list of endangered fish and wildlife. History: Cr. Register, September, 1975, No. 237, eff. 10-1-75. NR 27.02 Definitions. As used in this chapter: (1) "Department list of endangered species" shall consist of 2 lists: the federal endangered domestic and foreign species and the Wisconsin endangered species. (2) "Federal endangered domestic and foreign species list" shall mean the list of species or subspecies of fish and wildlife native to the United States that are threatened with extinction and species or subspecies of fish and wildlife found in other countries that are threatened with worldwide extinction, as published in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, revised as of January 1, 1971 and as subsequently amended. (3) "Fish and wildlife" shall mean any species or subspecies of any mammal, fish wild bird, amphibian, reptile, mollusk or crustacean, any part, products, eggs or offspring thereof or the dead body or parts thereof.
    [Show full text]