DOCSLIB.ORG

On the Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan, Arizona

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On the Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan, Arizona United States Department of the Interior Fish and ,Vildlife 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 22410-2006-F-0459 April 13, 2016 Memorandum To: Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico (ARD-ES) (Attn: Michelle Shaughnessy) Chief, Arizona Branch, Re.. gul 7/to . D'vision, Army Corps of Engineers, Phoenix, Arizona From: Acting Field Supervisor~ Subject: Biological and Conference Opinion on the Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan, Arizona This biological and conference opinion (BCO) responds to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) requirement for intra-Service consultation on the proposed issuance of a section lO(a)(l)(B) incidental take permit (TE-84356A-O) to Pima County and Pima County Regional Flood Control District (both herein referenced as Pima County), pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (U.S.C. 1531-1544), as amended (ESA), authorizing the incidental take of 44 species (4 plants, 7 mammals, 8 birds, 5 fishes, 2 amphibians, 6 reptiles, and 12 invertebrates). Along with the permit application, Pima County submitted a draft Pima County Multi-Species Conservation Plan (MSCP). On June 10, 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) requested programmatic section 7 consultation for actions under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CW A), including two Regional General Permits and 16 Nationwide Permits, that are also covered activities in the MSCP. This is an action under section 7 of the ESA that is separate from the section 10 permit issuance to Pima Couny. However, this BCO provides section 7 coverage of these actions provided they are consistent with the MSCP covered activities. The ACOE will implement or assure implementation of all avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that are associated with the MSCP to minimize incidental take of listed and covered species, as applicable, and in compliance with section7 of the ESA. As a separate action, the MSCP permit covers non-Federal land in Pima County, AZ as shown in Figure 1 of this BCO. As outlined in the MSCP and associated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the FWS worked closely with Pima County and the ACOE, as well as other Federal and non-Federal partners to develop the MSCP, EIS, and other associated documents. 2 Pima County MSCP Federal actions considered in this BCO include: 1) the issuance of a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit by the FWS, and 2) specified actions by the ACOE related to section 404 of the CWA that are consistent with, and including implementation of, the MSCP. The focus of our evaluation is to ensure that all Federal actions considered in this consultation do not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the covered species, do not destroy or adversely modify proposed or designated critical habitat, and that the MSCP minimizes and mitigates the effects of incidental take to the maximum extent practicable. In the late 1990s, Pima County embarked on a county-wide planning process to address the unique natural and cultural resources of the county. This effort is known as the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP), and included the development of the MSCP to address endangered species compliance and conservation. During the 15+ year development of the MSCP, the FWS worked with Pima County and the ACOE to evaluate the effects (and resultant incidental take) of their actions to the range of habitats in Pima County, especially riparian and aquatic habitats, that support a diversity of wildlife species, including species and habitats protected under the ESA. Many of the activities proposed for coverage by Pima County require the involvement of the ACOE as they implement section 404 of the CWA. This requirement makes it difficult to separate out the effects of project approval by Pima County and the effects of the actions requiring permitting by the ACOE. By combining the consultation requirements of these two Federal actions, it also streamlines the regulatory processes that applicants must navigate to make their project compliant. As a result, there is a reduction in time and work required by Pima County and the two agencies but, more importantly, it provides a framework for the consistent application of landscape-level conservation and mitigation measures that are more effective and efficient at achieving meaningful conservation of the species covered by the MSCP. This single analysis of effects for both Federal actions is included in this BCO to address the effects to species from both the section 7 perspective of the Federal agencies, but also the section 10(a)(1)(B) permit perspective of the non-Federal applicants. In this combined BCO, the FWS will document the intra-Service consultation for our Federal action of the issuance of a permit authorizing incidental take under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA for the non-Federal actions proposed for coverage under the MSCP. A summary of these non-Federal actions is provided in the Description of the Proposed Action section of this BCO, with a complete description found in the MSCP and relevant appendices that are included herein by reference. As indicated, this BCO also serves as the consultation document for ACOE actions included in the consultation. The ACOE has included specific portions of their discretionary programs within the MSCP permit area in their request for consultation. A summary of these ACOE actions is provided in the Description of the Proposed Action section of this BCO, with a more detailed discussion of these actions in the MSCP and in the ACOE’s request for consultation; these documents are incorporated herein by reference. In the standard analysis to determine the amount of take in a section 7 consultation on Federal actions, the FWS determines the amount of take that would occur, and provides reasonable and prudent measures, with associated terms and conditions, to minimize the amount of take. For the issuance of a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit, the amount of incidental take is to be minimized to the 3 Pima County MSCP “maximum extent practicable”. This is a more robust standard than for Federal agencies under section 7, but is consistent with Federal agency responsibilities under section 7(a)(1) owned by the Pima County. Because this is a combined BCO and there is no separation of effects and the resultant incidental take for the Federal and non-Federal covered actions, this section 7 consultation will use the standard for reduction of incidental take to the “maximum extent practicable” as required for section 10(a)(1)(B) permits with the understanding that this standard does not apply to Federal agencies generally, but only applies to the ACOE actions as provided herein due to the inclusive nature of the covered actions in the MSCP. In other words, the ACOE will ensure that their actions (issuance of permits) as covered in the MSCP and this BCO will be mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. The FWS and ACOE have determined that the proposed action may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the following listed covered species and/or designated critical habitats: Pima pineapple cactus (Coryphantha scheeri var. robustispina): endangered Huachuca water umbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva): endangered with critical habitat Lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae): endangered Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus; western distinct population segment): threatened DPS with proposed critical habitat Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus): endangered with critical habitat Gila chub (Gila intermedia): endangered with critical habitat Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis): endangered Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis): threatened with critical habitat Northern Mexican gartersnake (Thamnophis eques megalops): threatened with proposed critical habitat Jaguar (Panthera onca): endangered with critical habitat. For all other listed or proposed species, and their designated or proposed critical habitats that occur within Pima County, FWS and the ACOE have determined that the proposed actions will have no effect and these species and critical habitat are not addressed in this BCO. This includes the jaguar for which we have determined there are effects to designated critical habitat, but do not anticipate effects to or take of individual jaguars and, therefore, is not a covered species under the MSCP. Consistent with our policies for intra-Service consultations dealing with the consideration of candidate species and those regarding treatment of unlisted species in applications for section 10(a)(1)(B) permits, for the purposes of this BCO, the 35 unlisted animal and plant species included for coverage under the MSCP are considered to be proposed for listing as threatened or endangered. Therefore, in addition to the 10 federally-listed species listed above, we have determined that the following candidate species and species not currently listed under the ESA may also be adversely affected by the proposed actions: Needle-spined pineapple cactus (Echinomastus erectocentrus var. erectocentrus) Tumamoc globeberry (Tumamoca macdougalii) 4 Pima County MSCP Mexican long-tongued bat (Choeronycteris mexicana) Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) Western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus) California leaf-nosed bat (Macrotus californicus) Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana Chiricahuensis)
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Final Recovery Plan April 2007 CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG (Rana chiricahuensis) RECOVERY PLAN Southwest Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and are 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 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. Literature citation of this document should read as follows: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Chiricahua Leopard Frog (Rana chiricahuensis) Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, NM. 149 pp. + Appendices A-M. Additional copies may be obtained from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Field Office Southwest Region 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 500 Gold Avenue, S.W.
    [Show full text]
  • Pollination of Two Species of Ferocactus: Interactions Between Cactus-Specialist Bees and Their Host Plants
    Functional Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. Ecology 2005 Pollination of two species of Ferocactus: interactions 19, 727–734 between cactus-specialist bees and their host plants M. E. MCINTOSH Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, 1041 E. Lowell Street; BioSciences West, Room 310, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA Summary 1. Resolving the controversy over the prevalence of generalization in plant–pollinator interactions requires field studies characterizing the pollination effectiveness of all a plant’s floral visitors. Herein, the pollination effectiveness of all visitors to two species of barrel cactus (Ferocactus) was quantified. 2. Flowers of both species were pollinated almost exclusively by cactus-specialist bees: 99% (F. cylindraceus (Engelm.) Orcutt) and 94% (F. wislizeni (Engelm.) Britt. and Rose) of all seeds produced in this study resulted from cactus bee visits. 3. For F. cylindraceus, the cactus-specialist Diadasia rinconis was the most abundant visitor. For F. wislizeni, three cactus-specialists (including D. rinconis) plus generalists in the family Halictidae (which did not act as pollinators) each accounted for a quarter of all visits. 4. Diadasia rinconis visits to F. wislizeni flowers were more effective (per-visit) than visits by the other two cactus-specialists. 5. Pollen-collecting and nectar-collecting visits were equally effective. Nectar-collecting visits were the most abundant. 6. Apart from the non-pollinating halictids, floral visitors surprisingly did not include commonly co-occurring generalist bees. 7. These data suggest that, just as apparently specialized flowers may be visited by a diverse assemblage of generalists, so apparently generalized flowers may be visited predominantly by specialists, and that these specialists may perform virtually all of the pollination.
    [Show full text]
  • Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation [PW-05-03-D2-001]
    Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Evaluation Report Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Area Evaluation [PW-05-03-D2-001] Area Overview Size and Location: The Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Area (PWA) encompasses 37,330 acres. This area is located in the Tumacacori and Atacosa Mountains, which are part of the Nogales Ranger District of the Coronado National Forest in southeastern Arizona (see Map 4 at the end of this document). The Tumacacori PWA is overlapped by 30,305 acres of the Tumacacori Inventoried Roadless Area, comprising 81 percent of the PWA. Vicinity, Surroundings and Access: The Tumacacori Potential Wilderness Area is approximately 50 miles southeast of Tucson, Arizona. The Tumacacori PWA is centrally located within the mountain range and encompasses an area from Sardina and Tumacacori Peaks at the northern end to Ruby Road at the southern end and from the El Paso Natural Gas Line on the eastern side to Arivaca Lake on its western side. The PWA is adjacent to the Pajarita Wilderness Area, Arivaca Lake and Peña Blanca Lake. Both Pena Blanca and Arivaca Lakes are managed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department. Interstate 19 (I-19) connects the Tucson metropolitan area to the City of Nogales and the incorporated community of Sahuarita. The unincorporated communities of Green Valley, Arivaca Junction-Amado, Tubac, Tumacacori-Carmen and Rio Rico, Arizona and Sonora, Mexico are within close proximity to the eastern side of the Tumacacori Mountains and the PWA. State Highway 289 provides access from I-19 across private and National Forest System lands into the Tumacacori Ecosystem Management Area to Peña Blanca Lake and Ruby Road (NFS Road 39).
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Impact of Arizona's Principal Military Operations
    Economic Impact Of Arizona’s Principal Military Operations 2008 Prepared by In collaboration with Final Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter One INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND STUDY 1 METHODOLOGY Chapter Two DESCRIPTIONS OF ARIZONA’S PRINCIPAL 11 MILITARY OPERATIONS Chapter Three EMPLOYMENT AND SPENDING AT ARIZONA’S 27 PRINCIPAL MILITARY OPERATIONS Chapter Four ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF ARIZONA’S PRINCIPAL 32 MILITARY OPERATIONS Chapter Five STATE AND LOCAL TAX REVENUES DERIVED FROM 36 ARIZONA’S PRINCIPAL MILITARY OPERATIONS Chapter Six COMPARISONS TO THE MILITARY INDUSTRY IN 38 ARIZONA Chapter Seven COMPARISONS OF THE MILITARY INDUSTRY IN FY 43 2000 AND FY 2005 APPENDICES Appendix One HOW IMPLAN WORKS A-1 Appendix Two RETIREE METHODOLOGY A-6 Appendix Three ECONOMETRIC MODEL INPUTS A-7 Appendix Four DETAILED STATEWIDE MODEL OUTPUT A-19 Appendix Five REGIONAL IMPACT INFORMATION A-22 The Maguire Company ESI Corporation LIST OF TABLES Page Table 3-1 Summary of Basic Personnel Statistics 27 Arizona’s Major Military Operations Table 3-2 Summary of Military Retiree Statistics 28 Arizona Principal Military Operations Table 3-3 Summary of Payroll and Retirement Benefits 30 Arizona’s Major Military Operations Table 3-4 Summary of Spending Statistics 31 Arizona’s Major Military Operations Table 4-1 Summary of Statewide Economic Impacts 34 Arizona’s Major Military Operations Table 5-1 Summary of Statewide Fiscal Impacts 37 Arizona’s Military Industry Table 5-2 Statewide Fiscal Impacts 37 Arizona’s Military Industry Table 6-1 Comparison of Major Industries / Employers in Arizona 41 Table 7-1 Comparison of Military Industry Employment in 43 FY 2000 and FY 2005 Table 7-2 Comparison of Military Industry Economic Output in 43 FY 2000 and FY 2005 The Maguire Company ESI Corporation Arizona’s Principal Military Operations Acknowledgements We wish to acknowledge and thank the leadership and personnel of the various military operations included within this study.
    [Show full text]
  • Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument
    In Cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument Open-File Report 2008-1023 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey National Park Service This page left intentionally blank. In cooperation with the University of Arizona, School of Natural Resources Vascular Plant and Vertebrate Inventory of Chiricahua National Monument By Brian F. Powell, Cecilia A. Schmidt, William L. Halvorson, and Pamela Anning Open-File Report 2008-1023 U.S. Geological Survey Southwest Biological Science Center Sonoran Desert Research Station University of Arizona U.S. Department of the Interior School of Natural Resources U.S. Geological Survey 125 Biological Sciences East National Park Service Tucson, Arizona 85721 U.S. Department of the Interior DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Mark Myers, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008 For product and ordering information: World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS For more information on the USGS-the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: World Wide Web:http://www.usgs.gov Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS Suggested Citation Powell, B.F., Schmidt, C.A., Halvorson, W.L., and Anning, Pamela, 2008, Vascular plant and vertebrate inventory of Chiricahua National Monument: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1023, 104 p. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2008/1023/]. Cover photo: Chiricahua National Monument. Photograph by National Park Service. Note: This report supersedes Schmidt et al. (2005). Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Opinion on the Catalina-Rincon Firescape Project
    United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 9828 North 31st Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85051 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 Fax: (602) 242-2513 AESO/SE 02EAAZ00-2016-F-0773 December 4, 2017 Mr. Kenneth Born District Ranger Coronado National Forest, Santa Catalina Ranger District 5700 North Sabino Canyon Road Tucson, Arizona 85750 RE: Catalina-Rincon FireScape Project Dear Mr. Born: Thank you for your request for formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531-1544), as amended (Act). We received your March 28, 2016, request for consultation and biological assessment (BA) on April 4, 2016. At issue are impacts that may result from the proposed Catalina-Rincon FireScape Project located in Pima, Pinal, and Cochise counties, Arizona. The proposed action may affect the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) and its critical habitat, and the western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). You have also requested our concurrence that the proposed action may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae), Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis), and Gila chub (Gila intermedia) and its critical habitat. We concur with your determinations. The basis for our concurrences is found in Appendix A. This biological opinion (BO) is based on information provided in the March 29, 2016, BA; the May 25, 2011, and December 3, 2012, Scoping Notices; telephone conversations; and, other sources of information. Literature cited in this BO is not a complete bibliography of all literature available on the species of concern, prescribed or wildland fire and their effects, or on other subjects considered in this opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • A Global Phylogeny of Leafmining Ectoedemia Moths (Lepidoptera: Nepticulidae): Host Plant Family Shifts and Allopatry As Drivers of Speciation
    UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) A global phylogeny of leafmining Ectoedemia moths (Lepidoptera: Nepticulidae): host plant family shifts and allopatry as drivers of speciation Doorenweerd, C.; van Nieukerken, E.J.; Menken, S.B.J. DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0119586 Publication date 2015 Document Version Final published version Published in PLoS ONE License CC BY Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Doorenweerd, C., van Nieukerken, E. J., & Menken, S. B. J. (2015). A global phylogeny of leafmining Ectoedemia moths (Lepidoptera: Nepticulidae): host plant family shifts and allopatry as drivers of speciation. PLoS ONE, 10(3), [e0119586]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119586 General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:28 Sep 2021 RESEARCH ARTICLE A Global Phylogeny of Leafmining Ectoedemia Moths (Lepidoptera: Nepticulidae): Exploring Host Plant Family Shifts and Allopatry as Drivers of Speciation Camiel Doorenweerd1,2*, Erik J.
    [Show full text]
  • A GUIDE to the GEOLOGY of the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona: the Geology and Life Zones of a Madrean Sky Island
    A GUIDE TO THE GEOLOGY OF THE SANTA CATALINA MOUNTAINS, ARIZONA: THE GEOLOGY AND LIFE ZONES OF A MADREAN SKY ISLAND ARIZONA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 22 JOHN V. BEZY Inside front cover. Sabino Canyon, 30 December 2010. (Megan McCormick, flickr.com (CC BY 2.0). A Guide to the Geology of the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona: The Geology and Life Zones of a Madrean Sky Island John V. Bezy Arizona Geological Survey Down-to-Earth 22 Copyright©2016, Arizona Geological Survey All rights reserved Book design: M. Conway & S. Mar Photos: Dr. Larry Fellows, Dr. Anthony Lux and Dr. John Bezy unless otherwise noted Printed in the United States of America Permission is granted for individuals to make single copies for their personal use in research, study or teaching, and to use short quotes, figures, or tables, from this publication for publication in scientific books and journals, provided that the source of the information is appropriately cited. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying for general distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, for creating new or collective works, or for resale. The reproduction of multiple copies and the use of articles or extracts for comer- cial purposes require specific permission from the Arizona Geological Survey. Published by the Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress, #100, Tucson, AZ 85701 www.azgs.az.gov Cover photo: Pinnacles at Catalina State Park, Courtesy of Dr. Anthony Lux ISBN 978-0-9854798-2-4 Citation: Bezy, J.V., 2016, A Guide to the Geology of the Santa Catalina Mountains, Arizona: The Geology and Life Zones of a Madrean Sky Island.
    [Show full text]
  • Components of Nest Provisioning Behavior in Solitary Bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea)*
    Apidologie 39 (2008) 30–45 Available online at: c INRA/DIB-AGIB/ EDP Sciences, 2008 www.apidologie.org DOI: 10.1051/apido:2007055 Review article Components of nest provisioning behavior in solitary bees (Hymenoptera: Apoidea)* John L. Neff Central Texas Melittological Institute, 7307 Running Rope, Austin, Texas 78731, USA Received 13 June 2007 – Revised 28 September 2007 – Accepted 1 October 2007 Abstract – The components of nest provisioning behavior (resources per cell, transport capacity, trip dura- tion, trips per cell) are examined for a data set derived from the literature and various unpublished studies. While there is a trade-off between transport capacity and trips required per cell, the highest provisioning rates are achieved by bees carrying very large pollen loads at intermediate trip durations. Most solitary bees appear to be either egg or resource limited, so sustained provisioning rates over one cell per day are unusual. Provisioning rate / body size / transport capacity / solitary bees / trip duration 1. INTRODUCTION tradeoffs between provisioning one large cell or two small cells direct, indirect, or nonex- There is a vast literature on the foraging tac- istent? Are provisioning rates related to body tics of bees: what kinds of flowers to visit, how size? long to spend on a flower, how many flowers Provisioning rate is a general term and can in an inflorescence to visit, when to turn, and simply refer to the rate (mass per unit time) so forth. Much of this work is done within a at which foragers bring various food items framework of whether a forager should max- (pollen, nectar, oils, carrion, or whatever) to imize harvesting rate or foraging efficiency their nests.
    [Show full text]
  • Tumamoc Hill 2
    NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK, Theme XX: Arts and Science, Science and Invention NPS Form 10-900 (3-82) 0MB No. 1024-0018 Expires 10-31-87 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service For NPS use only National Register of Historic Places received Inventory—Nomination Form date entered See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type ali entries—complete applicable sections_______________ 1. Name historic Desert Laboratory of the Carnegie Institution and or common Tumamoc Hill 2. Location street & number Intersection of W. Anklam Road and W. St. Mary's Road not for publication city, town Tucson vicinity of state Arizona code 04 county code 019 3. Classification Category Ownership Status Present Use district xx public xx occupied agriculture museum yx building(s) private unoccupied commercial park structure both work in progress xx educational private residence site Public Acquisition Accessible entertainment religious Object in process xx yes: restricted government xx scientific being considered _ yes: unrestricted industrial transportation no military __ other: 4. Owner of Property name University of Arizona and Arizona State Lands Department (owns 340 acres) (owns 520 acres, leased to Univ. of AZ) street & number 1624 West Adams city, town Tucson, AZ 85721 vicinity of Phoenix state AZ 85007 5. Location of Legal Description courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. Pima County Courthouse street & number city, town Tucson state Arizona 6. Representation in Existing Surveys title Historic American Buildings Surve^as tnis property been determined eligible? ——yes no date 1981 __ __________________—X- federal __ state __ county _ local depository for survey records Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 FAX: (602) 242-2513 AESO/SE 2-21-94-F-192R2 September 30, 2002 Memorandum To: Field Manager, Phoenix Field Office, Bureau of Land Management From: Acting Field Supervisor Subject: Biological Opinion for Five Livestock Grazing Allotments in the Vicinity of Ajo, Arizona 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 (Act). Your request for formal consultation was dated April 19, 2002, and received by us on April 23, 2002. At issue are impacts that may result from the proposed reauthorization of livestock grazing on the Sentinel, Cameron, Childs, Coyote Flat, and Why allotments located in Maricopa and Pima counties, Arizona. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has determined that the proposed action for the five allotments may adversely affect the endangered Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis), and the proposed action for the Cameron and Childs allotments may adversely affect the endangered cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum cactorum). In your letter, you also requested our concurrence that the proposed action on the Cameron, Childs, Coyote Flat, and Why allotments may affect, but will not likely adversely affect, the endangered lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuena). We concur with that determination, which is based on sound analysis and guidance criteria for the species mutually agreed upon by our agencies.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report Environmental Assessment for Operation
    MAY 2002 FINAL REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR OPERATION DESERT GRIP USBP TUCSON AND YUMA SECTOR, ARIZONA IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE WASHINGTON, D.C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR OPERATION DESERT GRIP USBP TUCSON AND YUMA SECTOR, ARIZONA May 2002 Lead Agency: U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service Facilities and Engineering Division Washington, D.C. Responsible Official: Mr. Russ D’Hondt INS Headquarters Facilities and Engineering Division 425 I Street, Northwest, Room 2030 Washington, D.C. 20536 ABSTRACT PROPOSED ACTION: The proposed action would include the temporary placement of two trailers within an area of high undocumented alien (UDA) and drug trafficking crossings along the US/Mexico border. During the operation five agents would be stationed at the trailers 24-hours, seven days. PURPOSE AND NEED The primary purpose of the proposed action is to assist in FOR THE PROPOSED identifying and rescuing UDAs and illegal drug traffickers ACTION: who may be at risk of dying due to overexposure along the U.S./Mexico border within the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) Tucson and Yuma Sectors’ Area of Operations (AO). A secondary purpose of the operation is to reduce illegal immigration and drug trafficking along the border by increasing the USBP’s presence in these remote areas. ALTERNATIVES TO THE Alternatives addressed in the EA include the no action and PROPOSED ACTION: proposed action described above. The no action alternative would not enhance the USBP mission to deter the UDAs from entering the U.S. and would thus, indirectly place more migrants and/or USBP agents at risk. Of the alternatives considered, the proposed action would be the most cost- efficient and strategically effective approach to ensuring the USBP agents’ and illegal entrants’ health and safety.
    [Show full text]