DOCSLIB.ORG

In Reply Refer To: AESO/SE 2-21-90-F-119A April 17, 2001

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In Reply Refer To: AESO/SE 2-21-90-F-119A April 17, 2001 In Reply Refer To: AESO/SE 2-21-90-F-119a April 17, 2001 Memorandum To: Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix, Arizona From: Field Supervisor Subject: Revised Biological Opinion on Transportation and Delivery of Central Arizona Project Water to the Gila River Basin (Hassayampa, Agua Fria, Salt, Verde, San Pedro, Middle and Upper Gila Rivers and Associated Tributaries) in Arizona and New Mexico and its Potential to Introduce and Spread Nonnative Aquatic Species This revised biological opinion is in response to a January 3, 2001 request by the Bureau of Reclamation for reinitiation of formal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), on transportation and delivery of water through the Central Arizona Project (CAP) in the Gila River basin and its potential to introduce and spread nonnative aquatic species. The Santa Cruz River subbasin of the Gila basin is the subject of a separate consultation and is not addressed here. This biological opinion supercedes the April 15 (transmitted April 20), 1994 biological opinion on the same subject. Reinitiated consultation began on January 3, 2001, the date Reclamation’s request was received by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Reinitiation has been requested as a result of a court order that found the amendments to the 1994 biological opinion to be arbitrary and capricious (see consultation history section). This finding was based primarily upon the delays in implementation of the reasonable and prudent alternative, particularly barrier construction. The court concluded that take in excess of that anticipated by the 1994 opinion, had occurred to spikedace and loach minnow. This revised opinion considers the effects of all implementation delays and of such take, along with all relevant new or additional information that has become available since 1994. This opinion addresses the possible effects of the action on the endangered Gila topminnow, razorback sucker, desert pupfish, and Colorado squawfish, and the threatened spikedace, loach minnow, and bald eagle. These species were all addressed in the 1994 opinion. In addition, due to new information, the endangered Gila trout, and threatened Apache trout are also species of concern in this opinion. The Chiricahua leopard frog, a proposed threatened species, was considered in your biological assessment, but will not be addressed in this biological opinion. •CAP - Gila Basin Nonnatives Issues - Biological Opinion - Reinitiation - April 17, 2001– 2 Due to the need to consider information in addition to that covered in this opinion and to litigation-related time constraints, the Chiricahua leopard frog addressed separately by Reclamation. Scientific names for these and other species referred to by common names in this document are found in Appendix 1. This biological opinion is based on the 1994 biological opinion, which is incorporated here by reference (USFWS 1994); information used in the preparation of the 1994 biological opinion; the January 3, 2001 biological assessment (USBR 2001); the March 16 and March 30, 2001 Reclamation memoranda amending the biological assessment; April 6-13, 2001 comments on the draft biological opinion from Reclamation, Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD), Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), and the Center for Biological Diversity; telephone conversations; meetings; data in our files; and other sources of information. References cited in this biological opinion are not a complete bibliography of all literature available on the species of concern, the effects of the proposed action, or on other subjects considered in this opinion. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file in this office. TABLE OF CONTENTS CONSULTATION HISTORY....................................................4 PAST CONSULTATIONS ON CAP ........................................4 APPLICANTS..........................................................4 APRIL 15, 1994 BIOLOGICAL OPINION ....................................5 Informal Consultation for the 1994 Biological Opinion .......................5 Formal Consultation for the 1994 Biological Opinion ........................5 2001 REINITIATED CONSULTATION .....................................6 Informal Consultation .................................................6 Formal Consultation...................................................6 BIOLOGICAL OPINION .......................................................7 I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION.............................7 Non-Indian Agricultural Use............................................9 Municipal and Industrial Use ...........................................10 Recharge Use.......................................................10 Indian Use .........................................................11 Interrelated and Interdependent Actions and Indirect Effects ..................11 Conservation Measures ...............................................13 II. STATUS OF THE SPECIES (Range-wide)................................19 Spikedace..........................................................19 Loach minnow ......................................................19 Gila topminnow .....................................................20 •CAP - Gila Basin Nonnatives Issues - Biological Opinion - Reinitiation - April 17, 2001– 3 Razorback sucker....................................................20 Desert pupfish ......................................................21 Colorado squawfish..................................................21 Gila trout ..........................................................22 Apache trout........................................................22 Bald eagle..........................................................23 III. ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ...................................23 Action Area ........................................................24 General Environmental Baseline .......................................24 Status of the Species (within the Action Area) .............................26 Section 7 Consultation Environmental Baseline............................29 IV. EFFECTS OF THE ACTION..........................................30 VI. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS............................................35 V. CONCLUSION .....................................................37 INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT.............................................37 AMOUNT OR EXTENT OF TAKE ........................................38 Spikedace, loach minnow, Gila topminnow, razorback sucker, desert pupfish, Colorado squawfish, Gila trout, and Apache trout........................38 Bald eagle..........................................................39 EFFECT OF THE TAKE ................................................40 REASONABLE AND PRUDENT MEASURES ..............................41 Spikedace, loach minnow, Gila topminnow, razorback sucker, desert pupfish, Colorado squawfish, Gila trout, and Apache trout........................41 Bald eagle..........................................................41 TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION ......................42 Spikedace, loach minnow, Gila topminnow, razorback sucker, desert pupfish, Colorado squawfish, Gila trout, and Apache trout........................42 Bald eagle..........................................................44 DISPOSITION OF DEAD OR INJURED LISTED ANIMALS...................45 CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................45 REINITIATION NOTICE......................................................47 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................49 FIGURE 1. Route of Central Arizona Project ......................................63 FIGURE 2. Diagram of Pima Lateral Feeder Canal Turnout and Adjacent Area ............64 •CAP - Gila Basin Nonnatives Issues - Biological Opinion - Reinitiation - April 17, 2001– 4 FIGURE 3. Introduction methods of nonnative fishes in the United States ................65 TABLE 1. Responsible Parties for Actions Related to CAP ...........................66 TABLE 2. Central Arizona Project 1999 Water Deliveries by Turnout ..................68 TABLE 3. Types of Actions and their Effects Considered under Section 7 Consultation .....72 TABLE 4. Transfer of aquatic species via interbasin water transfers: Selected cases........73 TABLE 5. Species collected in Central Arizona Project (CAP) Aqueduct, Salt River Project (SRP) Canals, and the Florence-Casa Grande (F-CG) Canal. .................78 APPENDIX 1. Scientific Names of Species in Text .................................81 CONSULTATION HISTORY More detailed information on the topics discussed in this section, including dates of meetings, letters, and memoranda, can be found in the administrative record and is summarized in a document attached to this biological opinion entitled Background Information on the Central Arizona Project and Nonnative Aquatic Species in the Gila River Basin (from hereon referred to as the background document)(USFWS 2001a). PAST CONSULTATIONS ON CAP Since 1983, there have been numerous consultations on various aspects of CAP. Of those consultations, five addressed nonnative species issues, including the 1994 biological opinion for this consultation and an ongoing formal consultation on the issue of introduction and spread of nonnative aquatic species, via CAP, in the Santa Cruz River subbasin. A draft biological opinion for the latter was issued on June 11, 1999 finding jeopardy to Gila topminnow. APPLICANTS
Load more

Recommended publications
  • (LOWER PENNSYLVANIAN) in the PERMIAN BASIN Wayne R. Wright Bureau of Economic Geol
    DEPOSITIONAL HISTORY OF THE ATOKAN SUCCESSION (LOWER PENNSYLVANIAN) IN THE PERMIAN BASIN Wayne R. Wright Bureau of Economic Geology Jackson School of Geosciences The University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas ABSTRACT Atokan-age units in the Permian Basin record a 2nd-order transgression, with aerially restricted, lower Atokan fluvial to shallow-marine siliciclastics followed by pervasive carbonate deposition. In general, Atokan-age siliciclastics dominated deposition in the west of the Permian Basin while carbonate deposition dominated throughout the rest of the basin. Predominance of carbonate facies across most of the Permian Basin is due to (1) lack of siliciclastic supply, (2) overall 2nd-order rising sea level, and (3) progradation of the Upper Marble Falls Formation onto the Eastern Shelf. Progradation was due partly to lower accommodation to the west and backstepping/retreat from encroaching Atokan deltaics to the east. The beginning of the Atokan is marked by a sea-level drop and subsequent lowstand conditions. A sequence boundary separates the Atokan from the underlying Morrowan carbonate section throughout the Permian Basin. Siliciclastic deposition in and around the Permian Basin is more aerially restricted than in the Morrowan. The earliest Atokan lowstand event is manifested in alluvial and fluvial incised-valley sediments in Lea County, New Mexico, and the Broken Bone Graben (Cottle County, Texas); fan- delta deposits in the Palo Duro Basin and Taylor Draw field (Upton County, Texas); and 1 post-Lower Marble Falls–pre-Upper Marble falls conglomerates (Gibbons Formation?) on the Llano Uplift. Following the lowstand event, a 2nd-order transgression appears to have dominated throughout the rest of the Atokan; however 3rd- and 4th-order, high- amplitude, sea-level fluctuations also occurred.
    [Show full text]
  • Endangered Species
    FEATURE: ENDANGERED SPECIES Conservation Status of Imperiled North American Freshwater and Diadromous Fishes ABSTRACT: This is the third compilation of imperiled (i.e., endangered, threatened, vulnerable) plus extinct freshwater and diadromous fishes of North America prepared by the American Fisheries Society’s Endangered Species Committee. Since the last revision in 1989, imperilment of inland fishes has increased substantially. This list includes 700 extant taxa representing 133 genera and 36 families, a 92% increase over the 364 listed in 1989. The increase reflects the addition of distinct populations, previously non-imperiled fishes, and recently described or discovered taxa. Approximately 39% of described fish species of the continent are imperiled. There are 230 vulnerable, 190 threatened, and 280 endangered extant taxa, and 61 taxa presumed extinct or extirpated from nature. Of those that were imperiled in 1989, most (89%) are the same or worse in conservation status; only 6% have improved in status, and 5% were delisted for various reasons. Habitat degradation and nonindigenous species are the main threats to at-risk fishes, many of which are restricted to small ranges. Documenting the diversity and status of rare fishes is a critical step in identifying and implementing appropriate actions necessary for their protection and management. Howard L. Jelks, Frank McCormick, Stephen J. Walsh, Joseph S. Nelson, Noel M. Burkhead, Steven P. Platania, Salvador Contreras-Balderas, Brady A. Porter, Edmundo Díaz-Pardo, Claude B. Renaud, Dean A. Hendrickson, Juan Jacobo Schmitter-Soto, John Lyons, Eric B. Taylor, and Nicholas E. Mandrak, Melvin L. Warren, Jr. Jelks, Walsh, and Burkhead are research McCormick is a biologist with the biologists with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Permian Basin, West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico
    Report of Investigations No. 201 Stratigraphic Analysis of the Upper Devonian Woodford Formation, Permian Basin, West Texas and Southeastern New Mexico John B. Comer* *Current address Indiana Geological Survey Bloomington, Indiana 47405 1991 Bureau of Economic Geology • W. L. Fisher, Director The University of Texas at Austin • Austin, Texas 78713-7508 Contents Abstract ..............................................................................................................................1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Methods .............................................................................................................................3 Stratigraphy .....................................................................................................................5 Nomenclature ...................................................................................................................5 Age and Correlation ........................................................................................................6 Previous Work .................................................................................................................6 Western Outcrop Belt ......................................................................................................6 Central Texas ...................................................................................................................7 Northeastern Oklahoma
    [Show full text]
  • Mosaic of New Mexico's Scenery, Rocks, and History
    Mosaic of New Mexico's Scenery, Rocks, and History SCENIC TRIPS TO THE GEOLOGIC PAST NO. 8 Scenic Trips to the Geologic Past Series: No. 1—SANTA FE, NEW MEXICO No. 2—TAOS—RED RIVER—EAGLE NEST, NEW MEXICO, CIRCLE DRIVE No. 3—ROSWELL—CAPITAN—RUIDOSO AND BOTTOMLESS LAKES STATE PARK, NEW MEXICO No. 4—SOUTHERN ZUNI MOUNTAINS, NEW MEXICO No. 5—SILVER CITY—SANTA RITA—HURLEY, NEW MEXICO No. 6—TRAIL GUIDE TO THE UPPER PECOS, NEW MEXICO No. 7—HIGH PLAINS NORTHEASTERN NEW MEXICO, RATON- CAPULIN MOUNTAIN—CLAYTON No. 8—MOSlAC OF NEW MEXICO'S SCENERY, ROCKS, AND HISTORY No. 9—ALBUQUERQUE—ITS MOUNTAINS, VALLEYS, WATER, AND VOLCANOES No. 10—SOUTHWESTERN NEW MEXICO No. 11—CUMBRE,S AND TOLTEC SCENIC RAILROAD C O V E R : REDONDO PEAK, FROM JEMEZ CANYON (Forest Service, U.S.D.A., by John Whiteside) Mosaic of New Mexico's Scenery, Rocks, and History (Forest Service, U.S.D.A., by Robert W . Talbott) WHITEWATER CANYON NEAR GLENWOOD SCENIC TRIPS TO THE GEOLOGIC PAST NO. 8 Mosaic of New Mexico's Scenery, Rocks, a n d History edited by PAIGE W. CHRISTIANSEN and FRANK E. KOTTLOWSKI NEW MEXICO BUREAU OF MINES AND MINERAL RESOURCES 1972 NEW MEXICO INSTITUTE OF MINING & TECHNOLOGY STIRLING A. COLGATE, President NEW MEXICO BUREAU OF MINES & MINERAL RESOURCES FRANK E. KOTTLOWSKI, Director BOARD OF REGENTS Ex Officio Bruce King, Governor of New Mexico Leonard DeLayo, Superintendent of Public Instruction Appointed William G. Abbott, President, 1961-1979, Hobbs George A. Cowan, 1972-1975, Los Alamos Dave Rice, 1972-1977, Carlsbad Steve Torres, 1967-1979, Socorro James R.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Mexican Review, 06-16-1910
    University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository Santa Fe New Mexican, 1883-1913 New Mexico Historical Newspapers 6-16-1910 The ewN Mexican Review, 06-16-1910 New Mexican Printing Co. Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/sfnm_news Recommended Citation New Mexican Printing Co.. "The eN w Mexican Review, 06-16-1910." (1910). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/sfnm_news/7983 This Newspaper is brought to you for free and open access by the New Mexico Historical Newspapers at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Fe New Mexican, 1883-1913 by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ft if" THE NEW MEXICAN REVIEW. FORTY-SEVE- N YEAH SANTA FTi N. M.. THUItSDA JUNE Id 1910. NO 12 TAFT IN5ISI5 REQUISITION FE SLEPT OUTDOORS: SENATE LEADERS ASKED FOR IN KILLED ON; TRACK BY HE I! OIE Act Will Be Law Governor Haskell of Okla- Enabling President Will Get Tariff He Was Throvi Under Riot in Colorado and Ohio Chimayo Rancher Was Beat But Friends of Territories End of Next homa Wants Note by Alleged Board, and New Mexico Train in Albt'jperque and Fatal Feud in en With Hammer While Must Wait Until Postal Week Embezzler Returned Statehood Railroad Yards Kentucky Asleep Last Night Saving Bill Is Disposed WILL ADJOURN ON SATURDAY GUHRY REACHES WASHINGTON HIS BODY FEARFULLY iViANGLED CONVICT SHOOTS UP CHURCH REVENGE SUPPOSED MOTIVE $30,000,000 FOB IRRIGATION Beveridge and Other Member Judge McFie Returns From Las for the Remains Hope Again Springs Up Sent to This City and "tattle of Two Hours in Coal Sheriff Closson Hurries nn Auto- Reclamation Act Tacked as a of Territorial Committee at Vegas Where He Held .
    [Show full text]
  • Extinction Rates in North American Freshwater Fishes, 1900–2010 Author(S): Noel M
    Extinction Rates in North American Freshwater Fishes, 1900–2010 Author(s): Noel M. Burkhead Source: BioScience, 62(9):798-808. 2012. Published By: American Institute of Biological Sciences URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1525/bio.2012.62.9.5 BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable online platform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use. Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use. Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individual publisher as copyright holder. BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers, academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research. Articles Extinction Rates in North American Freshwater Fishes, 1900–2010 NOEL M. BURKHEAD Widespread evidence shows that the modern rates of extinction in many plants and animals exceed background rates in the fossil record. In the present article, I investigate this issue with regard to North American freshwater fishes. From 1898 to 2006, 57 taxa became extinct, and three distinct populations were extirpated from the continent. Since 1989, the numbers of extinct North American fishes have increased by 25%. From the end of the nineteenth century to the present, modern extinctions varied by decade but significantly increased after 1950 (post-1950s mean = 7.5 extinct taxa per decade).
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of the Tularosa Basin, New Mexico William M
    New Mexico Geological Society Downloaded from: http://nmgs.nmt.edu/publications/guidebooks/5 Geology of the Tularosa Basin, New Mexico William M. Sandeen, 1954, pp. 81-88 in: Southeastern New Mexico, Stipp, T. F.; [ed.], New Mexico Geological Society 5th Annual Fall Field Conference Guidebook, 209 p. This is one of many related papers that were included in the 1954 NMGS Fall Field Conference Guidebook. Annual NMGS Fall Field Conference Guidebooks Every fall since 1950, the New Mexico Geological Society (NMGS) has held an annual Fall Field Conference that explores some region of New Mexico (or surrounding states). Always well attended, these conferences provide a guidebook to participants. Besides detailed road logs, the guidebooks contain many well written, edited, and peer-reviewed geoscience papers. These books have set the national standard for geologic guidebooks and are an essential geologic reference for anyone working in or around New Mexico. Free Downloads NMGS has decided to make peer-reviewed papers from our Fall Field Conference guidebooks available for free download. Non-members will have access to guidebook papers two years after publication. Members have access to all papers. This is in keeping with our mission of promoting interest, research, and cooperation regarding geology in New Mexico. However, guidebook sales represent a significant proportion of our operating budget. Therefore, only research papers are available for download. Road logs, mini-papers, maps, stratigraphic charts, and other selected content are available only in the printed guidebooks. Copyright Information Publications of the New Mexico Geological Society, printed and electronic, are protected by the copyright laws of the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Burned the Crucifixes and Other Religious Objects That Had Been Scattered in and Around the Pueblo. Otermin's Army Repeated This
    burned the crucifixes and other religious objects not successful in reestablishing Spanish rule of that had been scattered in and around the the Pueblos, the interviews and explorations pueblo. Otermin's army repeated this ritual at Otermin and Mendoza conducted give the most Alamillo and Sevilleta. A short distance from complete picture of the effects of the revolt Sevilleta the army found deep pits where the among the pueblos. The Spanish presidio at El Indians had cached corn and protected it with a Paso sent two more punitive expeditions to New shrine of herbs. feathers and a clay vessel Mexico in 1688 and 1689 but it was not until the modeled with a human face and the body of a toad term of Governor Don Diego de Vargas (1690-1696) (Hackett and Shelby 1942:I:cxxix). On the march that New Mexico was reclaimed by Spain. from Socorro to Isleta. the army passed through the burned remains of four estancias. The The Aftermath of the Revolt estancia of Las Barrancas, located 23 leagues beyond Senecu and ten leagues downstream from Documentation of the 12-year period following the Isleta, was the only estancia that had not been Pueblo Revolt is scarce but speculation and greatly vandalized and burned (Hackett and Shelby conjecture abound. The more dramatic recon­ 1942:cxxx). structions of life among the Pueblos after the revolt show the Pueblos having destroyed every Otermin staged a surprise attack, taking Isleta vestige of Hispanic culture, including household Pueblo on December 6, 1681. About 500 Isleta and and religious objects, domesticated animals and Piro Indians were living in the village at the cereal crops.
    [Show full text]
  • Issue No. 87: April 2011
    ZIM CSWR OVII ; F 791 IC7x CII nOl87 ~r0111Ca oe Nuevo Mexico ~ Published since 1976 - The Official Publication of the Historical Society ofNew Mexico OJ April 2011 Issue Nurrrbez- 87 Lincoln County - Full of History According to the New Mexico Blue county seat was in the now historic Book, Lincoln County was . at one time. district of the village of Lincoln where the the largest county in New Mexico. Lincoln County War and Billy the Kid's Created on January 16, 1869 and named role in the conflict are a major part of in honor of Presid ent Abraham Lincoln. their history. the area in the south central part of the Not only is Lincoln County known as state. has had more than its share of "Billy the Kid Country" it also is the site of "exciting" (then and now) events. The first Fort Stanton which has a lonq and colorful history beqinntns in the days before the CivilWar. They have a museum and visitors center. To learn more about Fort Stanton. see recently published book by Lynda Sanchez. Fort Stanton: An Illustrated History. Legacy of Honor, Tradition ofHealing. Capitan qained fame with Smokey Bear when a cub was found on May 19, 1950 after a fire in the Lincoln National Signs in Lincoln New Mexico (Photograph by Carlee n Lazzell, April 28 . 2010) Forest. Shortly thereafter Smokey was the Smokey Bear Historical Park where A few miles to the northeast of taken to the National Zoo in Washin~ton , there is a museum and a nearby qift shop. Capitan are the ruins of the New Deal DC and he became the livin~ symbol of Community businesses have capitalized camp for young women.
    [Show full text]
  • Santa Fe Daily New Mexican, 12-28-1891 New Mexican Printing Company
    University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository Santa Fe New Mexican, 1883-1913 New Mexico Historical Newspapers 12-28-1891 Santa Fe Daily New Mexican, 12-28-1891 New Mexican Printing Company Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/sfnm_news Recommended Citation New Mexican Printing Company. "Santa Fe Daily New Mexican, 12-28-1891." (1891). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/ sfnm_news/3269 This Newspaper is brought to you for free and open access by the New Mexico Historical Newspapers at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Fe New Mexican, 1883-1913 by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. r.ibvftrift o! Congrest aiEXICAJN.: MONDAY. DECEMBER 28. 1891. NO. 264 VOL. 28. SANTA FE. N. M.. The of exploded his bomb in Sage's office. It is RICH VALLEY LANDS. Importance - -- -- WIRINGS:- - understood that the amount of dnronges keeping the blood In S- - : Z2 :BRIEF a condition Is has been placed at $100,0;0. The suit Col. Marraon Chats of Water and Agrl pure be of the universally known, SPITZ, will based upon the allegation culture tn Southwestern New the and yet there are Gold and Silver CD millionaire deliberately placing Mexico. Purify H - I H Jh The Cruiser San Francisco. broker's clerk botween himself and the very few people who San Dec. 2S. The cruiser with result that have perfectly pure Francisco. menacing dvnamiter, the Col. W. Or. Martnon, depu'.j U. S. sur- San Francisco left this port yesterday Mr. Sage's fife was saved at the expense blood.
    [Show full text]
  • Gila National Forest
    Travel Management Rule Implementation Gila National Forest Aquatic Specialist Report Prepared by Jerry A. Monzingo Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plant Biologist December 10, 2013 Implementation of the Travel Management Rule Implementation – Gila National Forest The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) April 2013 – Gila National Forest Page - 2 - Implementation of the Travel Management Rule Implementation – Gila National Forest Contents Analysis Question ............................................................................................................................... - 5 - Affected Environment ........................................................................................................................ - 5 - Relevant Laws, Regulations, and Policy ............................................................................................ - 5 - Methodology and Analysis Process ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • THREATENED and ENDANGERED SPECIES of NEW MEXICO 2008 Biennial Review and Recommendations
    THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES OF NEW MEXICO 2008 BIENNIAL REVIEW DRAFT First Public Comment Period March 11, 2008 New Mexico Department of Game and Fish Conservation Services Division DRAFT 2008 Biennial Review of T & E Species of NM, 3/11/08 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES OF NEW MEXICO 2008 Biennial Review and Recommendations Authority: Wildlife Conservation Act (17-2-37 through 17-2-46 NMSA 1978) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A total of 118 species and subspecies are on the 2008 list of threatened and endangered New Mexico wildlife. The list includes 2 crustaceans, 25 mollusks, 23 fishes, 6 amphibians, 15 reptiles, 32 birds and 15 mammals (Tables 1, 2). An additional 7 species of mammals has been listed as restricted to facilitate control of traffic in federally protected species. A species is endangered if it is in jeopardy of extinction or extirpation from the state; a species is threatened if it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range in New Mexico. Species or subspecies of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, mollusks, and crustaceans native to New Mexico may be listed as threatened or endangered under the Wildlife Conservation Act (WCA). During the Biennial Review, species may be upgraded from threatened to endangered, or downgraded from endangered to threatened, based upon data, views, and information regarding the biological and ecological status of the species. Investigations for new listings or removals from the list (delistings) can be undertaken at any time, but require additional procedures from those for the Biennial Review. The 2006 Biennial Review contained a recommendation for maintaining the status for 119 species and subspecies listed as threatened, endangered, or restricted under the WCA, and uplisting four species (Arizona grasshopper sparrow, Pecos bluntnose shiner, spikedace, and meadow jumping mouse ) from threatened to endangered and downlisting two species (shortneck snaggletooth and piping plover) from endangered to threatened.
    [Show full text]