DOCSLIB.ORG

United States Department of the Interior U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States Department of the Interior U.S United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021-4951 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 FAX: (602) 242-2513 In Reply Refer To: December 20, 2011 AESO/SE 22410-2011-F-0290 Memorandum To: Chief, Wildlife and Sportfish Restoration Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico (Attn: Nicole Jimenez) From: Field Supervisor Subject: Biological and Conference Opinion for Federal Funding of Aquatic Inventory, Survey, and Monitoring Activities, and Conservation Activities for Aquatic Species by Arizona Game and Fish Department, 2011-2020 Thank you for your request for formal consultation and conference with the Arizona Ecological Services Office (AESO) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544), as amended (Act). Your request was dated June 26, 2011, and received by us on June 27, 2011. At issue are impacts that may result from the proposed Federal funding by Wildlife and Sportfish Restoration (WSFR) of a suite of activities related to aquatic species management by Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) under the State Wildlife Grant (SWG) and Sport Fish Restoration (SFR) Grant for a period of 10-years beginning on July 1, 2011. The project area covers all aquatic habitats in Arizona where the activities included in the proposed action would be undertaken by AGFD in the 10-year period covered by this consultation. The proposed action may directly or indirectly affect listed, proposed, and candidate species and designated or proposed critical habitats in Arizona. In your request for consultation, you indicated that 34 listed, proposed, or candidate species would not be affected by the proposed action. Those species are not aquatic or riparian dependent and would not come into contact with AGFD personnel conducting covered activities in and adjacent to aquatic habitat. Forty nine species provided to us were considered to have a “may affect” determination; however, these were not differentiated into likely or not likely to be adversely affected. Direct and indirect effects are anticipated to all aquatic animal species, and indirect effects are anticipated to marsh- dwelling or riparian-dwelling animal species and plant species. Appendix A contains these tables with the determination made for that species as provided in your request and as determined through our evaluations. Concurrences for species with findings of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” for aquatic, marsh, or riparian animal and plant species are provided in Appendix B. 2 This biological and conference opinion (BCO) is based on information provided in the project description and supporting information provided with your request for consultation, other materials provided subsequent to June 27, 2011, by WSFR or AGFD, additional information from capture and handling protocols for aquatic animal species, and other sources of information. Literature cited in this BCO is not a complete bibliography of all literature available on the species of concern, survey and monitoring protocols, effects of such activities on aquatic species, or on other subjects considered in this opinion. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at this office. Because this BCO is lengthy and complex, we have provided a Table of Contents to assist in your examination of the document. Contents CONSULTATION HISTORY ....................................................................................................... 5 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................................... 9 ORGANIZATION OF THE BCO ................................................................................................ 11 STATUS OF THE SPECIES/ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ................................................ 11 Huachuca springsnail ................................................................................................................ 11 Page springsnail ........................................................................................................................ 14 San Bernardino springsnail ....................................................................................................... 17 Three Forks springsnail............................................................................................................. 20 Kanab ambersnail ...................................................................................................................... 23 Stephan’s riffle beetle ............................................................................................................... 25 Apache trout .............................................................................................................................. 28 Beautiful shiner ......................................................................................................................... 30 Bonytail ..................................................................................................................................... 33 Colorado pikeminnow ............................................................................................................... 36 Desert and Quitobaquito pupfishes ........................................................................................... 39 Gila chub ................................................................................................................................... 41 Gila topminnow ........................................................................................................................ 44 Gila trout ................................................................................................................................... 46 Headwater chub ........................................................................................................................ 48 Humpback chub ........................................................................................................................ 50 Little Colorado spinedace ......................................................................................................... 53 Loach minnow .......................................................................................................................... 56 Razorback sucker ...................................................................................................................... 60 Roundtail chub .......................................................................................................................... 63 3 Sonora chub .............................................................................................................................. 66 Spikedace .................................................................................................................................. 68 Virgin River chub ..................................................................................................................... 71 Virgin spinedace ....................................................................................................................... 74 Woundfin .................................................................................................................................. 76 Yaqui catfish ............................................................................................................................. 80 Yaqui chub ................................................................................................................................ 82 Yaqui topminnow ...................................................................................................................... 84 Zuni bluehead sucker ................................................................................................................ 86 Arizona treefrog Huachuca DPS ............................................................................................... 88 Chiricahua leopard frog ............................................................................................................ 90 Northern leopard frog ............................................................................................................... 94 Relict leopard frog .................................................................................................................... 96 Sonoran tiger salamander .......................................................................................................... 97 Narrow-headed gartersnake .................................................................................................... 101 Northern Mexican gartersnake ................................................................................................ 103 Sonoyta mud turtle .................................................................................................................. 106 New Mexico meadow jumping mouse ................................................................................... 109 EFFECTS OF THE ACTION ..................................................................................................... 111 Invertebrates ............................................................................................................................ 112 Fish .......................................................................................................................................... 114
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix C HYDROLOGIC REPORT on the PHOENIX
    CENTRAL ARIZONA SALINITY STUDY --- PHASE I Technical Appendix C HYDROLOGIC REPORT ON THE PHOENIX AMA Prepared for: United States Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation Prepared by: Brown and Caldwell 201 East Washington Street, Suite 500 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Brown and Caldwell Project No. 23481.001 C-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................ 2 LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... 3 LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 4 2.0 PHYSICAL SETTING ....................................................................................................... 5 3.0 GENERALIZED GEOLOGY ............................................................................................ 6 3.1 BEDROCK GEOLOGY ......................................................................................... 6 3.2 BASIN GEOLOGY ................................................................................................ 6 4.0 HYDROGEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ................................................................................ 9 4.1 GROUNDWATER OCCURRENCE ....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hassayampa Landscape Restoration EA Aquatics Resources Report
    Hassayampa Landscape Restoration Environmental Assessment Aquatics Resources Report Prepared by: Albert Sillas Fishery Biologist Prescott National Forest for: Bradshaw Ranger District Prescott National Forest August 25, 2017 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Survey Ik Salt River Valley, Arizona
    Soil Survey in Salt River Valley Item Type text; Book Authors Means, Thos. H. Publisher College of Agriculture, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Rights Public Domain: This material has been identified as being free of known restrictions under U.S. copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. Download date 28/09/2021 11:06:51 Item License http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/ Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/192405 U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DIVISION OF SOILS MILTON "WHITNEY, Chief SOIL SURVEY IK SALT RIVER VALLEY, ARIZONA. THOMAS H MEANS [REPRINTED *ROM THE EFFORT o\ FIIID OPLK\.HO\S os mt I)IM^ION ot i OK 1900 ] CONTENTS. Page. Introduction _ to 287 Geology and topography _ 288 Climate 291 Soils 293 Pecos sand 294 River wash 293 Salt Eiver gravel 293 G-ilafine sandy loam 296 Salt River adobe 296 G-lendale loess „__ 299 Colluvial soils, or mountain waste - 302 Maricopa gravelly loam 303 Maricopa sandy loam _ 304 Maricopaloam 306 Maricopa clay lo?-m „ 307 Hardpan _ 308 Solrnaps - - 308 Tempesheet , 308 Phoenix sheet 309 Buckeye sheet 309 Irrigation waters 310 Underground waters 31S Tempesheet „ , 314 Phoenix sheet 315 Buckeye sheet , 317 Alkali of the soils 319 Templesheet 319 Origin of alkali salts of Tempe sheet 321 Reclamation of alkali lands 323 Phoenix &heet - - 325 Buckeye sheet-, S38 Agriculture in Salt River Valley 331 Fruit farming 331 Cattle raising - 33S Dairying * — - %8& in ILLUSTRATIONS. PLATES. PLATE XXIV. Character of native vegetation on desert land near the moun- tains 290 XXY. Irrigated lands in Tempe area 302 XXVI.
    [Show full text]
  • Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2015
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. July 22, 2021 Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2015 Effective March 17, 2021 The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states and federally recognized Indian tribes to adopt water quality standards in order to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's Waters" (CWA, 1988). The attached WQS document is in effect for Clean Water Act purposes with the exception of the following provisions. Navajo Nation’s previously approved criteria for these provisions remain the applicable for CWA purposes. The “Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2015” (NNSWQS 2015) made changes amendments to the “Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2007” (NNSWQS 2007). For federal Clean Water Act permitting purposes, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) must approve these changes to the NNSWQS 2007 which are found in the NNSWQS 2015. The USEPA did not approve of three specific changes which were made to the NNSWQS 2007 and are in the NNSWQS 2015. (October 15, 2020 Letter from USEPA to Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency). The three specific changes which USEPA did not accept are: 1) Aquatic and Wildlife Habitat Designated Use - Suspended Solids Changes (NNSWQS 2015 Section 207.E) The suspended soils standard for aquatic and wildlife habitat designated use was changed to only apply to flowing (lotic) surface waters and not to non-flowing (lentic) surface waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998
    GILA TOPMINNOW, Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis, REVISED RECOVERY PLAN (Original Approval: March 15, 1984) Prepared by David A. Weedman Arizona Game and Fish Department Phoenix, Arizona for Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico December 1998 Approved: Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998 DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions required to recover and protect the species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepares the plans, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State and Federal Agencies, and others. Objectives are attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Time and costs provided for individual tasks are estimates only, and not to be taken as actual or budgeted expenditures. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor official positions or approval of any persons or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the Service. They represent the official position of the Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. ii Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Original preparation of the revised Gila topminnow Recovery Plan (1994) was done by Francisco J. Abarca 1, Brian E. Bagley, Dean A. Hendrickson 1 and Jeffrey R. Simms 1. That document was modified to this current version and the work conducted by those individuals is greatly appreciated and now acknowledged.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 07/01/2019 to 09/30/2019 Prescott National Forest This Report Contains the Best Available Information at the Time of Publication
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 07/01/2019 to 09/30/2019 Prescott National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact R3 - Southwestern Region, Occurring in more than one Forest (excluding Regionwide) AZ Public Service (APS) ROW - Vegetation management Completed Actual: 04/09/2019 04/2019 Heather Snow Vegetation Management with (other than forest products) 505-842-3445 Herbicides - Special use management [email protected] EA Description: FS must decide whether to allow APS to include using herbicides as a method to manage vegetation on existing *UPDATED* APS transmission ROW within five National Forests in Arizona. Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=45771 Location: UNIT - Kaibab National Forest All Units, Prescott National Forest All Units, Coconino National Forest All Units, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests All Units, Tonto National Forest All Units. STATE - Arizona. COUNTY - Coconino, Gila, Maricopa, Navajo, Yavapai. LEGAL - Not Applicable. Arizona Public Service Company Rights of Way across the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, Prescott, and Tonto National Forests. See map on website. Prescott College Academic - Recreation management In Progress: Expected:04/2018 05/2018 Julie Rowe Outfitter and Guide Priority Use - Special use management Scoping Start 02/02/2015 928-203-7516 (2015-2025) [email protected] CE Description: The Forest Service proposes to authorize Prescott College to conduct academic courses including new student orientation, adventure education, biology, human ecology, natural history, physical geography, field ecology, environmental conservation Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=47407 Location: UNIT - Coronado National Forest All Units, Kaibab National Forest All Units, Prescott National Forest All Units, Tonto Basin Ranger District, Coconino National Forest All Units, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests All Units.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment
    United States Department of Agriculture Supplemental Forest Service Southwestern Environmental Region April 2020 Assessment Proposed Riverbend Placer Mine and Lost Nugget Reclamation Project Bradshaw Ranger District Prescott National Forest In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Basin Outlook Report February 1, 2014
    United States Department of Arizona Agriculture Natural Resources Basin Outlook Report Conservation Service February 1, 2014 Issued by Released by Jason Weller Keisha L. Tatem Chief State Conservationist Natural Resources Conservation Service Natural Resources Conservation Service U.S. Department of Agriculture Phoenix, Arizona Basin Outlook Reports And Federal – State – Private Cooperative Snow Surveys How forecasts are made Most of the annual streamflow in Arizona originates as snowfall that has accumulated in the mountains during the winter and early spring. As the snowpack accumulates, hydrologists estimate the runoff that will occur when it melts. Measurements of snow water equivalent at selected manual snow courses and automated Snow Telemetry (SNOTEL) sites, along with precipitation and streamflow values, are used in statistical and simulation models to prepare runoff forecasts. These forecasts are coordinated between hydrologists in the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) the National Weather Service, and the Salt River Project. Forecasts of any kind are not perfect. Streamflow forecast uncertainty arises from three primary sources: (1) uncertainty of future weather conditions, (2) uncertainty in the forecasting procedure, and (3) errors in the data. The forecast, therefore, must be interpreted not as a single value but rather as a range of values with specific probabilities of occurrence. The middle of the range is expressed by the 50% exceedance probability forecast, for which there is a 50% chance that the actual flow will be above, and a 50% chance that the actual flow will be below, this value. To describe the expected range around this 50% value, four other forecasts are provided, two smaller values (90% and 70% exceedance probability) and two larger values (30%, and 10% exceedance probability).
    [Show full text]
  • 3 March 1999
    NAVAJO NATION SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 2007 (Photograph of the Little Colorado River near Grand Falls on January 4, 2005) Prepared by: Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency Water Quality Program Post Office Box 339 Window Rock, Arizona 86515 (928) 871-7690 Passed by Navajo Nation Resources Committee on May 13, 2008 Navajo Nation Surface Water Quality Standards 2007 Navajo Nation EPA Water Quality Program TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS - GENERAL PROVISIONS § 101 TITLE ................................................................................................................................ 1 § 102 AUTHORITY .................................................................................................................... 1 § 103 PURPOSE.......................................................................................................................... 1 § 104 DEFINITIONS................................................................................................................... 1 § 105 SEVERABILITY............................................................................................................... 6 PART II SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS § 201 ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY ..................................................................................... 7 § 202 NARRATIVE SURFACE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ...................................... 7 § 203 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ............................................................................................ 9 § 204 NARRATIVE
    [Show full text]
  • Native Fish Restoration in Redrock Canyon
    U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Final Environmental Assessment Phoenix Area Office NATIVE FISH RESTORATION IN REDROCK CANYON U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Southwestern Region Coronado National Forest Santa Cruz County, Arizona June 2008 Bureau of Reclamation Finding of No Significant Impact U.S. Forest Service Finding of No Significant Impact Decision Notice INTRODUCTION In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190, as amended), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), as the lead Federal agency, and the Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), as cooperating agencies, have issued the attached final environmental assessment (EA) to disclose the potential environmental impacts resulting from construction of a fish barrier, removal of nonnative fishes with the piscicide antimycin A and/or rotenone, and restoration of native fishes and amphibians in Redrock Canyon on the Coronado National Forest (CNF). The Proposed Action is intended to improve the recovery status of federally listed fish and amphibians (Gila chub, Gila topminnow, Chiricahua leopard frog, and Sonora tiger salamander) and maintain a healthy native fishery in Redrock Canyon consistent with the CNF Plan and ongoing Endangered Species Act (ESA), Section 7(a)(2), consultation between Reclamation and the FWS. BACKGROUND The Proposed Action is part of a larger program being implemented by Reclamation to construct a series of fish barriers within the Gila River Basin to prevent the invasion of nonnative fishes into high-priority streams occupied by imperiled native fishes. This program is mandated by a FWS biological opinion on impacts of Central Arizona Project (CAP) water transfers to the Gila River Basin (FWS 2008a).
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resource Planning Sustainable Cities Network November 7, 2019 Organizational Structure Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt
    Water Resource Planning Sustainable Cities Network November 7, 2019 Organizational Structure Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt Asst. Secretary Asst. Secretary of Water & of Asst. Secretary Science Fish, Wildlife & of Indian Affairs Asst. Secretary Parks of Land & Bureau of Minerals National Park Service Indian Affairs Bureau of Bureau of Reclamation Land Management Commissioner Brenda Burman U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Surfacing Mining U.S. Geological Reclamation & Enforcement Survey 2 Lower Colorado Region Utah New Mexico Arizona 3 Phoenix Area Office Boundaries COLORADO RIVER VERDE RIVER SALT RIVER GILA RIVER SAN PEDRO RIVER Mission 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. Overview • Largest water provider in the 17 western States (479 dams and 348 reservoirs) • Nation’s second largest producer of hydroelectric power • Develops authorized facilities to store and convey new water supplies Recharge Xeriscape Water Treatment Wetlands Irrigation Efficiencies 7 Drought Contingency Plan (DCP) • Consensus-based drought contingency plans were developed • each basin state • American Indian tribes • Mexico • DCP includes • Basin state voluntary reductions and other actions • Mexico agreed to implement a Binational Water Scarcity Contingency Plan after the United States adopted the DCP Colorado River Basin Overview • 16.5 million acre-feet (maf) allocated annually - 7.5 maf
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submission Listings Arizona
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES MULTIPLE PROPERTY SUBMISSION LISTINGS ARIZONA Grace Lutheran Church, Maricopa, Arizona, 93000835 FINDING AID Prepared by National Park Service - Intermountain Region Museum Services Program Tucson, Arizona August 2017 National Register of Historic Places – Multiple Property Submission Listings –Arizona 2 National Register of Historic Places – Multiple Property Submission Listings – Arizona Scope and Content Note: The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the official list of the Nation's historic places worthy of preservation. Authorized by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect America's historic and archeological resources. - From the National Register of Historic Places site: http://www.nps.gov/nr/about.htm The Multiple Property Submission (MPS) listings records are unique in that they capture historic properties that are related by theme, general geographic area, and/or period of time. The MPS is the current terminology for submissions of this kind; past iterations include Thematic Resource (TR) and Multiple Resource Area (MRA). Historic properties nominated under the MPS rubric will contain individualized nomination forms and will be linked by a Cover Sheet for the overall group. Historic properties nominated under the TR and MRA rubric are nominated
    [Show full text]