DOCSLIB.ORG

Beaver Dam Wash NCA ROD and Approved

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Beaver Dam Wash NCA ROD and Approved Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Area Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Area Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Prepared by the U. S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management St. George Field Office December 2016 Edwin L. Roberson Utah State Director Bureau of Land Management DEAR READER LETTER United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Utah State Office P.O. Box 45155 Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0155 http://www.blm.gov In reply to: 1610 (UTC03200) DOI-BLM-UT-C030-2015-1-EIS Dear Reader: I am pleased to announce that after several years of hard work and collaborative efforts, the Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Area (NCA) Resource Management Plan (Approved RMP) is complete. This document will provide direction for the management of approximately 64,000 acres of BLM-managed public lands in Washington County, in southwestern Utah. The attached Record of Decision (ROD) and Approved RMP were prepared in accor- dance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, and the National Environmental Policy Act. The Approved RMP finalizes the management goals, objectives, and decisions that were presented in the Proposed RMP/Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS), released on September 2, 2016 and subject to a 30-day pro- test period that ended on October 3, 2016. Nine protest letters were received from entities that had participated in the planning process and that had interests that might be adversely affected by approval of the RMP. The protests were reviewed by the BLM Director in Washington, D.C. After careful consideration of all points raised in these protests, the Director concluded that the BLM planning team and decision makers followed all applicable laws, regulations, policies, and pertinent resource considerations in developing the Proposed RMP/Final EIS. The protest review did not result in any changes being made in the Proposed RMP. My approval of this ROD serves as the final decision by the Department of the Interior for all land use planning level decisions included in the attached Approved RMP. Certain decisions in the Approved RMP are implementation decisions and are appealable to the Interior Board of Land Appeals. These implementation level decisions are noted in the ROD (Recreation Management REC-19 through REC-51and Livestock Grazing LIV-7) and are appealable under the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 43 CFR, part 4. Any party adversely affected by the implementation level decisions may appeal within 30 days of publication of the Approved RMP, in accordance with the provisions of 43 CFR, part 4, subpart E. The appeal should state the specific numbered decision and the rationale for the appeal. Within 30 days of the posting of this decision (“date of service”), a Notice of Appeal must be filed in writing to: State Director-BLM Utah State Office 440 West 200 South, Suite 500 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1345. At the same time, a copy of the Notice of Appeal must also be sent to: Regional Solicitor- U.S. Department of the Interior, 6201 Federal Building, 1235 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138-1180. Please consult the appropriate regula- tions (43 CFR, part 4, subpart E) for further appeal requirements. The ROD/Approved RMP are available to the public online at http://bit.ly/2fhtN3P. Hard copies of the ROD and Approved RMP may be reviewed at: Public Lands Information Center 345 East Riverside Drive St. George, Utah 84790-6714 Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Area Introduction iii DEAR READER LETTER TABLE OF CONTENTS Color Country District Office Table of Contents 176 East DL Sargent Drive Cedar City, Utah 84721-9337 Record of Decision Public Room 1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................3 BLM Utah State Office 1.1 Purpose and Need ...............................................................................................................................3 440 West 200 South, Suite 500 1.2 Description of the Planning Area .......................................................................................................3 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1345 2.0 Overview of the Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Alternative A (No Action) .................................................................................................................. 6 We greatly appreciate all who contributed to the completion of this Approved RMP, including other Federal and 2.2 Alternative B (BLM's Preferred Alternative) ....................................................................................7 State agencies, and representatives from the State of Utah, Washington County, Utah, and Mojave County, Arizona, 2.3 Alternative C (Environmentally Preferable) .....................................................................................7 the entities that were Cooperating Agencies on this planning effort. We also appreciate the involvement by individu- 2.4 Alternative D .....................................................................................................................................7 als, groups, and organizations, as public input informed and improved the planning documents. We look forward to 2.5 Proposed RMP ...................................................................................................................................7 working with all of you as we implement the decisions in the Approved RMP. 3.0 Results of Protest Review ............................................................................................................................ 8 4.1 What the Decision/RMP Provides ..................................................................................................... 8 4.2 What the Decision/RMP Does Not Provide ..................................................................................... 9 Sincerely, 4.3 Implementation Decisions ............................................................................................................... 9 4.4 Supplementary Rules ....................................................................................................................... 9 5.0 Management Considerations in Selecting the Approved RMP ................................................................. 10 5.1 Water Resources ..............................................................................................................................10 5.2 Geologic and Paleontological Resources ........................................................................................ 10 Edwin L. Roberson 5.3 Soil Resources ..................................................................................................................................10 Utah State Director 5.4 Native Vegetation Communities .....................................................................................................10 Bureau of Land Management 5.5 Livestock Grazing .............................................................................................................................10 5.6 Special Status Species–including Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Species Proposed for Listing under Endangered Species Act ................................................................ 10 5.7 Fish and Wildlife Habitat ...................................................................................................................11 5.8 Heritage Resources ..........................................................................................................................11 5.9 National Historic Trails (Old Spanish National Historic Trail) ..........................................................11 5.10 Recreation and Visitor Services ......................................................................................................11 5.11 Comprehensive Travel and Transportation Management .............................................................11 5.12 Lands and Realty Management ......................................................................................................11 6.0 Consistency and Consultation Review .........................................................................................................11 6.1 Governor’s Consistency ....................................................................................................................11 6.2 Consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act .......................................................... 12 6.3 Consultations with American Indian Tribes .................................................................................... 12 6.4 Section 7 Consultation under the Endangered Species Act .......................................................... 12 7.0 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................................................................... 12 8.0 Approved RMP Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................................................... 12 9.0 Public Involvement ...................................................................................................................................... 13 10.0 Availability of the Plan
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Yanawant: Paiute Places and Landscapes in the Arizona Strip
    Yanawant Paiute Places and Landscapes in the Arizona Strip Volume Two OfOfOf The Arizona Strip Landscapes and Place Name Study Prepared by Diane Austin Erin Dean Justin Gaines December 12, 2005 Yanawant Paiute Places and Landscapes in the Arizona Strip Volume Two Of The Arizona Strip Landscapes and Place Name Study Prepared for Bureau of Land Management, Arizona Strip Field Office St. George, Utah Prepared by: Diane Austin Erin Dean Justin Gaines Report of work carried out under contract number #AAA000011TOAAF030023 2 Table of Contents Preface……………………………………………………………………………………………ii i Chapter One: Southern Paiute History on the Arizona Strip………………………………...1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Early Southern Paiute Contact with Europeans and Euroamericans ........................... 5 1.2 Southern Paiutes and Mormons ........................................................................................ 8 1.3 The Second Powell Expedition......................................................................................... 13 1.4 An Onslaught of Cattle and Further Mormon Expansion............................................ 16 1.5 Interactions in the First Half of the 20 th Century ......................................................... 26 Chapter Two: Southern Paiute Place Names On and Near the Arizona Strip 37 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • TMDL Water Quality Study of the Virgin River Watershed
    TMDL Water Quality Study of the Virgin River Watershed DRAFT January 28, 2004 Submitted to: Utah Department of Environmental Quality Division of Water Quality 288 North 1460 West Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Kent Montague Project Manager Harry Lewis Judd Project Supervisor Submitted by: Tetra Tech, Inc. Water Resources and TMDL Center Utah Division of Water Quality TMDL Water Quality Study of the Virgin River CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................1 2.0 Water Quality Standards ...................................................................................................................5 2.1 303(d) List Status ........................................................................................................................5 2.2 Parameters of Concern.................................................................................................................7 2.2.1 Salinity and Total Dissolved Solids ........................................................................................7 2.2.2 Temperature ............................................................................................................................8 2.2.3 Total Phosphorus and Dissolved Oxygen ...............................................................................8 2.2.4 Selenium..................................................................................................................................8 2.3 Applicable
    [Show full text]
  • Beaver DAM Wash National Conservation
    Beaver Dam Wash BLM National Conservation Area What is a National Conservation Area? Through the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Congress designated the Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Area (NCA) in Washington County, Utah “to conserve, protect, and enhance… the ecological, scenic, wildlife, recreational, cultural, historical, natural, educational, and scientific resources” of these public lands. The new NCA comprising roughly of 63,500 acres is managed by the BLM’s St. George Field Office. Where is the Beaver Dam Wash NCA? Located in the southwest corner of Washington County, Utah, the Beaver Dam Wash NCA is approximately 22 miles west of St. George, Utah and roughly 13 miles northwest of Littlefield, Arizona. The Nevada and Arizona state lines, border the western section of the NCA and Interstate 15 and the Virgin River parallel its southern boundary. U.S. Highway 91 is the only paved highway through the NCA. What Are the Special Values of the Beaver Dam Wash NCA? This NCA is within an ecological transition zone between the Mojave Desert and the Great Basin. Creosote bush, white bursage, and other desert shrubs grow at lower elevations and provide habitat for desert bighorn sheep and the Mojave Desert tortoise, a threatened species listed under the Endangered Species Act. Joshua trees and dense stands of blackbrush cover St. George Field Office the slopes of the Beaver Dam Mountains, which rise along the eastern boundary of the NCA. Surface water flows in the upper reaches of Beaver Dam Wash, but rarely travels all the way through the NCA. Riparian vegetation along the stream channel is important habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Assessment Units
    APPENDIX A ASSESSMENT UNITS SURFACE WATER REACH DESCRIPTION REACH/LAKE NUM WATERSHED Agua Fria River 341853.9 / 1120358.6 - 341804.8 / 15070102-023 Middle Gila 1120319.2 Agua Fria River State Route 169 - Yarber Wash 15070102-031B Middle Gila Alamo 15030204-0040A Bill Williams Alum Gulch Headwaters - 312820/1104351 15050301-561A Santa Cruz Alum Gulch 312820 / 1104351 - 312917 / 1104425 15050301-561B Santa Cruz Alum Gulch 312917 / 1104425 - Sonoita Creek 15050301-561C Santa Cruz Alvord Park Lake 15060106B-0050 Middle Gila American Gulch Headwaters - No. Gila Co. WWTP 15060203-448A Verde River American Gulch No. Gila County WWTP - East Verde River 15060203-448B Verde River Apache Lake 15060106A-0070 Salt River Aravaipa Creek Aravaipa Cyn Wilderness - San Pedro River 15050203-004C San Pedro Aravaipa Creek Stowe Gulch - end Aravaipa C 15050203-004B San Pedro Arivaca Cienega 15050304-0001 Santa Cruz Arivaca Creek Headwaters - Puertocito/Alta Wash 15050304-008 Santa Cruz Arivaca Lake 15050304-0080 Santa Cruz Arnett Creek Headwaters - Queen Creek 15050100-1818 Middle Gila Arrastra Creek Headwaters - Turkey Creek 15070102-848 Middle Gila Ashurst Lake 15020015-0090 Little Colorado Aspen Creek Headwaters - Granite Creek 15060202-769 Verde River Babbit Spring Wash Headwaters - Upper Lake Mary 15020015-210 Little Colorado Babocomari River Banning Creek - San Pedro River 15050202-004 San Pedro Bannon Creek Headwaters - Granite Creek 15060202-774 Verde River Barbershop Canyon Creek Headwaters - East Clear Creek 15020008-537 Little Colorado Bartlett Lake 15060203-0110 Verde River Bear Canyon Lake 15020008-0130 Little Colorado Bear Creek Headwaters - Turkey Creek 15070102-046 Middle Gila Bear Wallow Creek N. and S. Forks Bear Wallow - Indian Res.
    [Show full text]
  • Diatom Flora of Beaver Dam Creek, Washington County, Utah, USA
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 52 Number 2 Article 3 9-22-1992 Diatom flora of Beaver Dam Creek, Washington County, Utah, USA Kurtis H. Yearsley Brigham Young University Samuel R. Rushforth Brigham Young University Jeffrey R. Johansen John Carroll University, University Heights, Ohio Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Yearsley, Kurtis H.; Rushforth, Samuel R.; and Johansen, Jeffrey R. (1992) "Diatom flora of Beaver Dam Creek, Washington County, Utah, USA," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 52 : No. 2 , Article 3. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol52/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Great Basin Naturalist 52(2), pp 131-138 DIATOM FLORA OF BEAVER DAM CREEK, WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH, USA Kurtis H. Yearslel, Samuel R. Rushforth1, and Jeffrey R. Johansen! ABSTRACT.-The diatom flora ofBeaver Dam Creek, Washington County, Utah, was studied. The study area is in awarm MOjave Desert environment at an elevation between 810 and 850 m. A total of 99 taxa were identified from composite samples taken in the fall, winter, spring, and summer seasons. These taxa are all broadly distributed and no endemic species were encountered. Three new records for the state of Utah were identifted: Gomp!umeis eriense Sky. & Mayer, Navicula clginensis var.lata (M. Perag.) Paa., and Nitzschia-calida Grun. The most important taxa throughout the studyas determined by multiplying percent presence by average relative density (Important Species Index) were Cymbella affinM Katz., Epithemia sorex Katz., Navicula veneta Katz .
    [Show full text]
  • Aquatic Habitat Management Program 2020 Utah Accomplishments
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management AQUATIC HABITAT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2020 UTAH ACCOMPLISHMENT REPORTING Photo by: Meghan Krott, Color Country Aquatic Ecologist Page Intentionally Left Blank BLM UTAH Aquatic Habitat Management Program - 2020 Accomplishment Report U.S. Department Of The Interior Bureau Of Land Management Aquatic Habitat Management Program 2020 Utah Accomplishment Reporting The following report is a summary of projects (by District) that maintain and restore fisheries, riparian, water quality, surface and groundwater resources, as well as the physical, chemical, and biological processes of aquatic habitat. These projects would not be possible without the hard work of field staff, as well as the many partnerships that ensure success. Not every project is included, but a variety of projects that fit under the integrated Aquatic Habitat Management (AHM) Program. Compiled by: Justin Jimenez, BLM Utah Aquatics Program Lead 3 BLM UTAH Aquatic Habitat Management Program - 2020 Accomplishment Report Contents Canyon Country District ................................................................................................................. 7 Aquatic Habitats Web App and Other Geospatial Developments ..................................................... 7 Colorado River - Side Channel Restoration Above New Rapid Update .............................................. 8 San Juan River WRI – Side Channel Restoration Updates ................................................................ 12 Erosion Control
    [Show full text]
  • Ground Water - Surface Water Interactions in the Lower Virgin River Area, Arizona and Nevada
    UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations 1-1-1995 Ground water - surface water interactions in the lower Virgin River area, Arizona and Nevada Lynn Metcalf University of Nevada, Las Vegas Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/rtds Repository Citation Metcalf, Lynn, "Ground water - surface water interactions in the lower Virgin River area, Arizona and Nevada" (1995). UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations. 502. http://dx.doi.org/10.25669/z90f-mtsv This Thesis 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 Thesis 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 Thesis has been accepted for inclusion in UNLV Retrospective Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely afreet reproduction.
    [Show full text]
  • V5 2-7 Comment Letters
    2.7 Comment Letters Received after Deadline TABLE 2-9 COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED AFTER DEADLINE Commenter Date of Comment Signatory and Title Joe Schumacher Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce 04/12/2012 Chairman of the Board Larry Witt, Individual 04/26/2012 – NPCA-CBD et al. 05/04/2012 Adam Lazar Tetra Technologies, Inc. via Rutan & Tucker, 05/07/2012 Robert S. Bower Joseph Vanderhorst Metropolitan Water District of Southern California 05/14/2012 Sr. Deputy General Counsel 05/23/2012 (2), Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Laborers International Union of Christina Caro 05/25/2012 and North America LaborersLocal Union 783 (4 submissions) Attorney for Local 783 06/22/12 Diane Allison, Individual 05/24/2012 – MC and Lorenzo Hagerty, Individuals 02/24/2012 – Jean Marie Naples, Individual 05/24/2012 – Anthony Nicolau, Individual 05/24/2012 – Danielle Bower, Individual 05/25/2012 – J. Capozzelli, Individual 05/25/2012 – David A. Brunetti, Individual 05/26/2012 – Phyllis Jacoby, Individual undated – Steve Jacoby, Individual undated – Heather Hahn, Individual 05/29/2012 – Benjamin and Jennifer Valentine, Individuals 05/29/2012 – Center for Biological Diversity 05/31/2012 Adam Lazar, Staff Attorney Pam Nelson, Individual 06/01/2012 – Greta Loeffelbein, Individual undated – Anuj Shaw, Individual 06/20/2012 -- The Wildlands Conservancy 06/24/2012 Claudia Sall Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery, and Storage Project ESA / 210324 Final Environmental Impact Report July 2012 O_OCCC O_RCCC I_Witt Sarah Spano From: Tom Barnes Sent: Thursday, April 26,
    [Show full text]
  • AZSTRIP Chapter 3.Pdf
    Arizona Strip Draft Plan/DEIS Chapter 3: Affected Environment CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.................................3.1 RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 3.1 AIR .......................................................................................................................................3.1 Overview...........................................................................................................................3.1 Parashant Air.....................................................................................................................3.2 Vermilion Air ....................................................................................................................3.2 Arizona Strip FO Air.........................................................................................................3.2 WATER................................................................................................................................3.3 Overview...........................................................................................................................3.3 Water Rights .................................................................................................................3.3 Surface Water Resources ..............................................................................................3.3 Ground Water Resources ..............................................................................................3.6 Parashant
    [Show full text]
  • St. George Jeepers Trail Report-March 07, 2017 Cedar Pockets, Arizona to Joshua Tree Scenic Byway
    St. George Jeepers Trail Report-March 07, 2017 Cedar Pockets, Arizona to Joshua Tree Scenic Byway The ride today was offered as an option to the concurrent trip to White Pockets, Arizona. Our trip was approximately 50 miles total. We met at the BLM office in St. George and caravanned to the Cedar Pockets exit off I-15. After airing down our tires the 20 vehicles proceeded up the Cedar Pockets Canyon to our first vista stop. Continuing on west we passed more striking scenery and entered the range of the Joshua tree. Looking west into Nevada and the Beaver Dam Wash. After exiting the canyon and entering Beaver Dam Wash we stopped to examine a sinkhole. Sinkholes are not uncommon throughout the area. In areas underlain with limestone or gypsum the acidic groundwater can seep through fissures and eventually erode them to the point that subsurface caverns form. The ceiling of the caverns can collapse and a sinkhole is formed. Departing the sinkhole, we traveled north to the Utah state line and entered the Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation area. Carol Steck poses at the sign. Jeepers listen to a presentation summarizing Beaver Dam Wash desert tortoise habitat research project. Beaver Dam Wash National Conservation Area (NCA) is a 63,500-acre United States National Conservation Area located in southwest Utah along the borders with Arizona and Nevada. It is managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management as part of the National Landscape Conservation System, and was authorized in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries Survey of the Lower Virgin River, Beaver Dam Wash, Arizona to Lake Mead, Nevada
    FISHERIES SURVEY OF THE LOWER VIRGIN RIVER, BEAVER DAM WASH, ARIZONA TO LAKE MEAD, NEVADA July 1993 - December 1997 BIO/WEST and Southern Nevada Water Authority fisheries biologists seining in the Virgin River. Prepared for: Prepared by: March 1999 Southern Nevada Water Authority Paul B. Holden 1 001 South Valley View Boulevard Paul D. Abate Las Vegas, Nevada 89153 BIO/WEST, Inc. 1 063 West 1400 North Logan, Utah 84321 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors are deeply indebted to Mr. Jim Heinrich of the Nevada Division of Wildlife and Ms. Janet Monaco of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, whose foresight and support led to the initiation of this study. Originally conceived by Jim Heinrich, the study was initiated by the Southern Nevada Water Authority and has allowed an in-depth study of portions of river previously considered unimportant for native fish. The authors also wish to thank the several biologists that work with Ms. Monaco who served as field assistants during the project. In particular, Mr. Zane Marshall provided logistical and field support during many of the years of the study. Mr. Mike Johnson of the Southern Nevada Water Authority is also much appreciated for his assistance in providing coordination with local landowners along the river. Other BIO/WEST, Inc. biologists conducted much of the field work during the early years of the study, including Mr. Randall Filbert and Mr. William Masslich. The authors also appreciated the assistance of Ms. Yvette Converse in completing the database and assisting with data analysis and the production of figures and tables. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 1993 the Southern Nevada Water Authority and the Nevada Division of Wildlife initiated a cooperative study of the fish fauna of the Virgin River from Riverside, Nevada, to Lake Mead, Nevada.
    [Show full text]
  • Bufo Microscaphus) in Arizona
    Great Basin Naturalist Volume 53 Number 4 Article 12 12-28-1993 Distribution of the southwestern toad (Bufo microscaphus) in Arizona Brian K. Sullivan Arizona State University West, Phoenix, Arizona Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn Recommended Citation Sullivan, Brian K. (1993) "Distribution of the southwestern toad (Bufo microscaphus) in Arizona," Great Basin Naturalist: Vol. 53 : No. 4 , Article 12. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/gbn/vol53/iss4/12 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Western North American Naturalist Publications at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Great Basin Naturalist by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Great Basin Naturalist 53(4), pp. 402-406 DISTRIBUTION OF THE SOUTHWESTERN TOAD (BUFO MICROSCAPHUS) IN ARIZONA Brian K. Sullivanl Key words: Bufa microscaphus, southwestern toad, Arizona, distribution, amphibian decline, riparian habitat, hybridization. The current distribution and status of pop­ adult toads were found, they were measured ulations of the southwestern toad, Bufo (snout-vent length in mm, SVL), pho­ microscaphus, are of considerable interest tographed, and released or retained as vouch­ given the suspected decline in anuran er specimens (deposited in the ASU Verte­ amphibians in the western United States brate Collection). If larvae were present, a (Blaustein and Wake 1990, Sweet 1991). This sample was collected and returned to the lab­ bufonid, typically associated with riparian oratory for rearing to allow confident identifi­ habitats in the desert Southwest, is largely cation (larvae of Bufo woodhousii and B.
    [Show full text]