DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft Habitat Conservation Plan Horseshoe and Bartlett Reservoirs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft Habitat Conservation Plan Horseshoe and Bartlett Reservoirs Draft Habitat Conservation Plan Horseshoe and Bartlett Reservoirs Submitted to: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Submitted by: Salt River Project July 2007 Attachment 1 Draft Habitat Conservation Plan Horseshoe and Bartlett Reservoirs SUBMITTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 10(A)(1)(B) OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT JULY 2007 Additional information may be obtained from: Craig Sommers Chuck Paradzick ERO Resources Corporation Salt River Project 1842 Clarkson Street P.O. Box 52025 Denver, Colorado 80218 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2025 (303) 830-1188 (602) 236-2724 DRAFT HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR HORSESHOE AND BARTLETT RESERVOIRS Contents Executive Summary.......................................................................................................ES-1 I. Background.................................................................................................................1 A. Description of the Action, Purpose and Need for the HCP .....................................3 B. Scope of the Habitat Conservation Plan for Horseshoe and Bartlett.......................5 1. Species Covered.................................................................................................5 2. Geographical Area Covered...............................................................................7 3. Environmental Baseline.....................................................................................8 4. Time Period Covered .........................................................................................8 5. Impacts Covered................................................................................................8 C. Goals and Objectives of the HCP ............................................................................9 D. Public Involvement in the HCP .............................................................................10 E. Description of Applicant and Beneficiaries...........................................................11 1. The Applicant...................................................................................................11 2. HCP Beneficiaries............................................................................................12 F. Description of SRP System, Horseshoe and Bartlett Reservoirs, and Reservoir Operations ...................................................................................................14 1. Overview..........................................................................................................15 2. History..............................................................................................................15 3. Overall Reservoir Operations ..........................................................................18 4. Horseshoe and Bartlett.....................................................................................19 II. Alternatives...............................................................................................................23 A. Formulation and Evaluation of Alternatives..........................................................23 1. Compliance With the ESA...............................................................................23 2. Impacts on Listed, Candidate, and Other Covered Species.............................24 3. Public Input......................................................................................................24 4. Impacts on Water Rights and Deliveries .........................................................24 5. Extent and Feasibility of Minimization and Mitigation Measures ..................25 6. FWS Guidance.................................................................................................25 B. Alternatives Examined in Detail............................................................................25 1. No Permit Alternative......................................................................................27 2. Modified Historical Operation Alternative......................................................29 3. Optimum Operation Alternative (Proposed Action)........................................30 C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration............................................32 III. Affected Resources...................................................................................................37 A. Covered Species and Other Wildlife......................................................................37 1. Covered Species...............................................................................................37 2. Other Listed and Rare Species.........................................................................71 B. Other Affected Resources......................................................................................78 1. Water Resources..............................................................................................78 2. Recreation ........................................................................................................85 i 3. Geology and Geomorphology..........................................................................89 4. Vegetation........................................................................................................91 IV. Impact Analysis......................................................................................................103 A. Area of Analysis and Tools Used in the Analysis ...............................................103 1. Reservoir Operation Model............................................................................103 2. Flycatcher Habitat Model ..............................................................................104 3. AGFD Model – 11.1-acre Neighborhood as Essential Habitat......................109 B. Impacts of the Optimum Operation Alternative (Proposed Action)....................110 1. Impacts on Flycatchers ..................................................................................110 2. Impacts on Bald Eagles..................................................................................123 3. Impacts on Cuckoos.......................................................................................132 4. Impacts on Native Fish ..................................................................................133 5. Impacts on Frog and Gartersnake Species.....................................................143 6. Impacts on Listed and Rare Plants, and Other Listed Wildlife and Species of Concern ........................................................................................143 7. Impacts on Water Resources..........................................................................144 8. Impacts on Recreation....................................................................................144 9. Impacts on Geology and Geomorphology .....................................................144 10. Impacts on Vegetation ...................................................................................144 11. Cumulative Effects on Covered Species........................................................145 12. Summary of Indirect Effects on Covered Species .........................................146 C. Impacts of the No Permit and Modified Historical Operation Alternatives ........147 1. No Permit Alternative....................................................................................147 2. Modified Historical Operation Alternative....................................................151 V. Actions to Minimize, Mitigate, Monitor, and Manage the Impacts of Optimum Operation of Horseshoe and Bartlett................................................................................155 A. Relationship of the HCP to Recovery Plans ........................................................155 1. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan ..........................................155 2. Razorback Recovery Plan and Goals.............................................................159 3. Spikedace and Loach Minnow Recovery Plans.............................................160 B. Overview of Minimization and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management Measures ..............................................................................................161 1. Minimization and Mitigation .........................................................................161 2. Monitoring .....................................................................................................162 3. Adaptive Management...................................................................................163 C. Minimization, Mitigation, Monitoring, and Management Measures for Covered Bird Species.................................................................................................163 1. Minimize Impacts at Horseshoe.....................................................................164 2. Mitigation Habitat Acquisition and Management..........................................165 3. Monitoring for Covered Bird Species............................................................179 4. Adaptive Management for Covered Bird Species .........................................182 D. Minimization, Mitigation, Monitoring, and Management Measures for Covered Native Fish, Frog, and Gartersnake Species................................................187 1. Methods..........................................................................................................188 ii 2. Minimization and Mitigation Measures, Management and Maintenance...................................................................................................190
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arizona Fishing Regulations 3 Fishing License Fees Getting Started
    2019 & 2020 Fishing Regulations for your boat for your boat See how much you could savegeico.com on boat | 1-800-865-4846insurance. | Local Offi ce geico.com | 1-800-865-4846 | Local Offi ce See how much you could save on boat insurance. Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in all states or all GEICO companies. Boat and PWC coverages are underwritten by GEICO Marine Insurance Company. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. TowBoatU.S. is the preferred towing service provider for GEICO Marine Insurance. The GEICO Gecko Image © 1999-2017. © 2017 GEICO AdPages2019.indd 2 12/4/2018 1:14:48 PM AdPages2019.indd 3 12/4/2018 1:17:19 PM Table of Contents Getting Started License Information and Fees ..........................................3 Douglas A. Ducey Governor Regulation Changes ...........................................................4 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION How to Use This Booklet ...................................................5 JAMES S. ZIELER, CHAIR — St. Johns ERIC S. SPARKS — Tucson General Statewide Fishing Regulations KURT R. DAVIS — Phoenix LELAND S. “BILL” BRAKE — Elgin Bag and Possession Limits ................................................6 JAMES R. AMMONS — Yuma Statewide Fishing Regulations ..........................................7 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT Common Violations ...........................................................8 5000 W. Carefree Highway Live Baitfish
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Report of the Stewart Mountain
    GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE STEWART MOUNTAIN QUADRANGLE, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZO~A by Steven J. Skotnicki and Robert S. Leighty Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-12 July, 1997 Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress, Suite #100, Tucson, Arizona 85701 Includes 19 page text and 1:24,000 scale geologic map Partially funded by the Arizona Geological Survey and the U.S. Geological Survey STATEMAP Program Contract # 1434-HQ-96-AG-01474. This report is preliminary and has not been edited or reviewed for conformity with Arizona Geological Survey standards INTRODUCTION This map depicts both the bedrock geology and the general ages and distribution of Late Tertiary and Quaternary deposits and geomorphic surfaces in the Stewart Mountain quadrangle (see Figure 1). The Salt River, re-emerging from Saguaro Lake, slices through the middle of the study area where it separates granite pediment and felsic volcanic rocks of the Usery and Goldfield Mountains (respectively) to the south, from a vast expanse of Late Tertiary basin-fill sediments to the north. Mapping of the surficial deposits was based both on field observations and interpretation of color 1:30,000-scale aerial photographs (dated 6-12-88), obtained from the Tonto National Forest in Phoenix. All of the region is administered by the Tonto National Forest. Good access to the region is provided by State Route 87, the Bush Highway, and Usery Pass Road (see Figure 2). A primitive road provides access to Bulldog Canyon, but locked gates at both ends can only be opened by obtaining a pennit from the Tonto National Forest Service field office in Mesa.
    [Show full text]
  • Mormon Flat Dam Salt River Phoenix Vicinity Maricopa County Arizona
    Mormon Flat Dam Salt River HAER No. AZ- 14 Phoenix Vicinity Maricopa County Arizona PHOTOGRAPHS WRITTEN HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA Historic American Engineering Record National Park Service Western Region Department of Interior San Francisco, California 94102 ( ( f ' HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD Mormon Flat Dam HAER No. AZ-14 Location: Mormon Flat Dam is located on the Salt River in eastern Maricopa County, Arizona. It is approximately 50 miles east of Phoenix. UTM coordinates 25 feet northeast of the dam (in feet) are: Easting 1505701.5184; Northing 12180405.3728, Zone 12. USGS 7.5 quad Mormon Flat Dam. Date of Construction: 1923-1925. Engineer: Charles C. Cragin. Present Owner: The Salt River Project. Present Use: Mormon Flat Dam is operated by the Salt River Project for the purposes of generating hydroelectic power and for storing approximately 57,000 acre feet of water for agricultural and urban uses. Significance: Mormon Flat Dam was the first dam constructed under the Salt River Project's 1920's hydroelectic expansion program. Historian: David M. Introcaso, Corporate Information Management, Salt River Project. Mormon Flat Dam HAER No. AZ-14 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I Introduction 3 Chapter II The Need to Expand the Association's Hydroelectric Capacity . • . • • . 20 Chapter III The Construction of Mormon Flat Dam . 37 Chapter IV The Construction of Horse Mesa Dam 60 Chapter V Post-Construction: Additions to the Association's Hydroelectric Program and Modifications to Mormon Flat and Horse Mesa Dams 79 Chapter VI Conclusion . 105 Chapter VII Epilogue: Expansion Backlash, "Water Users Oust Cragin" . 114 Appendixes . 130 Bibliography 145 Mormon Flat Darn HAER No.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of a Threadfin Shad Introduction Upon Black Crappie and Smallmouth Buffalo Pupulations in Roosevelt Lake
    Effects of a threadfin shad introduction upon black crappie and smallmouth buffalo pupulations in Roosevelt Lake Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Beers, Gary Delman, 1942- Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 25/09/2021 03:32:11 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/551797 EFFECTS OF A THREADFIN SHAD INTRODUCTION UPON BLACK CRAPPIE AND SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO POPULATIONS IN ROOSEVELT LAKE by Gary Delman Beers A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of FISHERIES MANAGEMENT In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1 9 6 5 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.
    [Show full text]
  • Geologic Map of the Bartlett Dam Quadrangle and Southern Part of the I-Iorseshoe Dam Quadrangle, Maricopa County, Arizona
    Geologic Map of the Bartlett Dam Quadrangle and southern part of the I-Iorseshoe Dam Quadrangle, Maricopa County, Arizona by Steven J. Skotnicki Arizona Geological Survey Open-File Report 96-22 September, 1996 Arizona Geological Survey 416 W. Congress, Suite 100, Tucson, AZ 85701 Includes 21 page text and 1 :24,000 scale geologic map. Partially funded by the Arizona Geological Survey and the US. Geological SunJey STATEAIAP Program Contract if 1434-95-A-J353 This report is preliminary and hilS not been edited or rpI'ie""',j fr! :lr:idwl!l\' \'/1111 /\ri?nn:1 Gpolnoil' II SlJrl/"" Introduction This map and report summarize the geology of the northern part of the lower Verde River Valley in central Arizona. The map encompasses the Bartlett Dam 7.5' U.S.G.S. topographic quadrangle and the southern part of the Horseshoe Dam 7.5' US.G.S. topographic quadrangles (see Figure 1). The study area is on the northeast fringe of the Phoenix metropolitain area due east of Cave Creek and approximately 50 kilometers northeast of downtown Phoenix. The eastern side the study area includes Bartlett Dam, the western two-thirds of Bartlett Reservoir, and part of the Verde River. The center of the study area includes the volcanic hills of Brushy Mountain and overlying dissected basin-fill deposits. Late Tertiary basin-fill stratigraphy is well-exposed in the southeastern corner of the map. Most of the northern part of the study area is underlain by coarse­ grained K-feldspar porphyritic granite which has been eroded into a well-developed pediment south ofthe drainage divide (see Figure 2).
    [Show full text]
  • Quagga Mussel Risk Analysis for Arizona
    Quagga Mussel Risk Analysis for Arizona Name Quagga mussel (Dreissena bugensis) Description Quaggas are small freshwater bivalve mollusk, reaching sizes up to 4 centimeters. The quagga mussel has a rounded angle between the ventral and dorsal surfaces. (Benson, et al) Color patterns vary widely with black, cream or white bands, but can vary to the point of having only dark or light colored shells and no stripes. They are typically found attached to objects, surfaces or each other by byssal threads originating underneath the shells. Life History There are five stages in the life cycle of a quagga mussel. The first three stages are microscopic (egg, veliger, post-veliger) where they remain suspended in the water column for up to four weeks and can easily pass through filters and strainers. As the shell is developed they drop out of the water column (settling stage) and attach to both hard and soft surfaces. Adults have a tendency to aggregate and form massive colonies and can live for 3 to 5 years. Reproductive Strategy Quaggas have separate sexes with an equal ratio of male to female and become sexually mature when the reach 8 to 10 mm in length. Quaggas can produce up to 40,000 eggs per breeding cycle, with multiple breeding cycles every year and could produce up to one million eggs in a year. Environmental Tolerances and Restrictions Quagga mussels can survive and reproduce in a wide range of habitats and environmental conditions. The great diversity of Arizona’s habitats and water chemistries will result in different rates of invasion or establishment in some waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing the Flow of Rivers
    Managing the Flow to Better Use, Preserve Arizona's Rivers by Joe Gelt Tecumseh, Shawnee Chief, expressed bewilderment that intruding whites expected Indians to sell land. "Sell a country!" he exclaimed, "Why not sell the air, the great sea, as well as the earth? Did not the Great Spirit make them all for the use of his children?" Puzzled by land ownership, Tecumseh might be doubly perplexed by efforts to manage rivers. He rightly might ask, "Are not rivers naturally animated like clouds and wind? Do not rivers respond to the same natural forces as mountains? Rivers flow; they don't follow management plans." As events turned out, the West was won; land is owned; and rivers are indeed managed to control their use. Much can be learned about a society's values from its strategies to manage and care for its rivers. An especially limited natural resource in Arizona, rivers are valued for many reasons, from practical to spiritual, from irrigation to meditation. What we choose for our rivers and for what reasons expresses as much about our culture as Tecumseh's remark tells of the Shawnee. The Need to Protect Rivers A river is managed to control its use. More specifically, river management is a strategy to promote cooperative river use among various, even competing interests, while at same time protecting a river's natural or environmental values. Pollution, dams, development, diversion, timber, grazing, mineral extraction and recreation are important river management issues. In Arizona and throughout the United States rivers increasingly are perceived as a resource in need of protection.
    [Show full text]
  • Horseshoe and Bartlett Reservoirs Habitat Conservation Plan
    Horseshoe and Bartlett Reservoirs Habitat Conservation Plan ANNUAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT 2011 PUBLIC REVIEW VERSION Verde River at Horseshoe Reservoir PREPARED FOR: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Field Office 2321 W. Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021-4951 PREPARED BY: Salt River Project Environmental Services Department PAB 352 P.O. Box 52025 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2025 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 5 2. Annual Reporting Requirements ................................................................................................................ 5 3. Horseshoe Lake Operation ITP Compliance ................................................................................................ 6 a. Horseshoe and Bartlett Operation Summary ......................................................................................... 6 b. Flycatcher and Cuckoo Operation Objective ........................................................................................ 12 c. Covered Aquatic Species Operation Objective ..................................................................................... 13 d. Covered Bird Monitoring ....................................................................................................................... 13 i. Vegetation Monitoring .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • FACT SHEET of Environmental Quality Publication Number: FS 16 -15
    Arizona Department FACT SHEET of Environmental Quality Publication Number: FS 16 -15 Ambient Groundwater Quality of the Salt River Basin: A 2001-2015 Baseline Study – June 2016 Introduction The Arizona Department of Environmen- tal Quality (ADEQ) Ambient Groundwater Monitoring Program conducted a baseline study to characterize the groundwater quality of the Salt River basin from 2001 to 2015. ADEQ carried out this task under Arizona Revised Statutes §49-225 that mandates monitoring of waters of the state including its aquifers. The fact sheet is a synopsis of the ADEQ Open-File Re- port 16-01.1 Groundwater in the Salt River basin is generally suitable for drinking water uses based on the sampling results from this study. The Salt River basin comprises 5,232 square miles within east-central Arizona and includes portions of Apache, Gila, Greenlee, Maricopa, and Navajo coun- ties. The basin extends from the White Figure 1 - Map of the Salt River Basin Mountains located near the New Mexico *This map is for general reference only and may not be all inclusive. More detailed information and specific locations can be obtained by contact- border to the northeast of Phoenix where ing the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Stewart Mountain Dam forms Saguaro Lake (Figure 1). The basin’s population was 29,057 in 2000, most of who lived in the communities of Globe, Miami, Young, and in Fort Apache and Whiteriver on the White Mountain Apache Nation.² Most land is used for recreation and live- stock grazing, with major copper mines located in the Globe-Miami area.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishing Report Related Information March 23, 2005 - Lake Levels - Stocking Schedule Been Fishing? - Where to Fish Tell Us About It
    Fishing Report Related Information March 23, 2005 - Lake Levels - Stocking Schedule Been Fishing? - Where to Fish Tell us about it. Your comments may be added to the - Urban Fishing weekly fishing report. Report editor: Rory Aikens, (602) 789-3214 Regional editors: Pinetop Region - Richard Dreyer, (928) 367-4281 Flagstaff Region - Chuck Benedict, (928) 774-5045 Kingman Region - Andy Clark, (928) 692-7700 Yuma Region - Brad Jacobsen (928) 342-4051 Tucson Region - Dave Neill, (520) 628-5376 ext. 561 Mesa Region - Richard Wiggins, (481) 324-3544 Other ways to get the fishing report: Internet home page: azgfd.gov Recorded public call-in line: (602) 789-3701 Rory's Tip Cool temperatures and a chance of rain (or snow in the higher elevations) are expected late this week, but a warm-up is forecast for next week--heating up the fishing statewide as well. If you haven't yet gotten your fishing license, this is a great time to buy one and head outdoors! The first catfish stocking of the spring in Phoenix and Tucson urban lakes will be done on March 24. About 13,000 pounds total of 2-pound catfish will be stocked. Good fishing has been reported up at Green Valley Lake, our urban lake in Payson. In the Prescott area, venture out to Fain Lake and Lynx Lake-we've had great reports on rainbow trout action. These lakes were recently stocked. In central Arizona, look to Lake Pleasant for white bass. Most are running in the Agua Fria arm of the lake, where the fishing has been great.
    [Show full text]
  • Theodore Roosevelt Lake 2013 Sedimentation Survey
    Technical Report No. SRH-2014-08 Theodore Roosevelt Lake 2013 Sedimentation Survey U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center Denver, Colorado January 2014 Technical Report No. SRH-2014-08 Theodore Roosevelt Lake 2013 Sedimentation Survey prepared by Ronald L. Ferrari U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center Water and Environmental Resources Division Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Group Denver, Colorado January 2014 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) Sedimentation and River Hydraulics (Sedimentation) Group of the Technical Service Center (TSC) prepared and published this report for the Salt River Project (SRP). Kent Collins and Ron Ferrari of the Sedimentation Group conducted the bathymetric survey in May 2013. Ron Ferrari completed the data processing to generate the 2013 topography and area-capacity values presented in this report. Kent Collins of the Sedimentation Group performed the technical peer review of this document. Mission Statements The U. S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Reclamation Report This report was produced by the Bureau of Reclamation’s Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Group (Mail Code 86-68240), PO Box 25007, Denver, Colorado 80225-0007, www.usbr.gov/pmts/sediment/. Disclaimer No warranty is expressed or implied regarding the usefulness or completeness of the information contained in this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Xus L2 S15 944
    XUS L2 S15 944 A77 flOG TJ4ESAtT RIVER PROJECT OF ARIZONA EEE IR1Z, C0.DOc I )CUSt2 AISO4I 42J1'-3 S /riqq k S .5 .. .. -S- -..-. IIDENTICAL WITH THE SALT RIVER PROJECT AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENT AND POWER DI OPERATED BY THE SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USER'S ASSOCIATION ROOSEVELT DAM Built 1905-1 1, Addns. 1923-24 - Spiliways lowered 1937 ev. Coping 2,146 Max. Thickness, base, ft 184 Lake Cap'y, Jan. '39, ac-ft1,400,000 ormal High Water elev 2,136 Thickness at top, ft 16 Lake Area, acres 17,800 illway crest elev 2,120.25 Cu. Yard Masonry 343,750 Lake Length, miles 23 .'ngth, darn proper, ft 723 Drainage Area, sq. mi 5,830 Head on turbines, ft 112-222 it. bedrock to roadway, ft 280 Spiliway Cap y., sec-ft 150,000 Generating Cap'y., H.P 24,000 Cost, dam and power plant $5,560,000 PROJECT HISTORY A large part of the Salt River Valley wa cultivated in prehistoric times, but abandoned long before the coming of the white man. Many interesting remains of the ancient villages and canals still exist. "A larger rural population tilled the fields of this valley before the commencement of the Christian Era than farm its lands today.Through climatic change and channel erosion the Canal Builders were compelled to relinquish their domain . These were theOriginal Engineers,the true Pioneers, the feats performed with the Stone Axe and the Stone Hoe demanded as lofty purpose and high courage as those created with later day devices." (Dr. Turney 1924) Irrigation by whitesettlers began about 1867.The river flow is eratic, varying from a small stream to enormous floods.The supply at low river stage was inadequate for the land in cultivation, and the flows in excess of immediate needs or canal capacities were lost, due tolack ofstoragefacilities.
    [Show full text]