DOCSLIB.ORG

Roundtail Chub

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Roundtail Chub Case 4:18-cv-00404-EJM Document 1 Filed 08/15/18 Page 1 of 19 1 Ryan Adair Shannon (Or. Bar No. 155537) Center for Biological Diversity 2 2009 NE Alberta St., Suite 207 3 Portland, OR 97211 Phone: (503) 283-5474 ext. 407 4 Email: [email protected] Pro Hac Vice 5 6 Brian Segee (Cal. Bar No. 200795) Center for Biological Diversity 7 660 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1000 8 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (805) 750-8852 9 Email: [email protected] Pro Hac Vice 10 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA TUCSON DIVISION 14 15 16 Center for Biological Diversity, a non- Case No.: _____________ profit organization, 17 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY 18 Plaintiff, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 19 v. 20 Ryan Zinke, in his official capacity as 21 Secretary of the Interior; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 22 23 Defendants. 24 25 INTRODUCTION 26 1. Plaintiff Center for Biological Diversity (“Center”) challenges, pursuant to 27 the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 28 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (“FWS”) withdrawal of a proposed rule establishing Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Page 1 Case 4:18-cv-00404-EJM Document 1 Filed 08/15/18 Page 2 of 19 1 ESA protections for a distinct population segment (“DPS”) of the roundtail chub in the 2 lower Colorado River basin (defined as the Colorado River and all of its tributaries south 3 of Glen Canyon Dam) (hereafter, “LCR roundtail chub”). 82 Fed. Reg. 16,981 (Apr. 7, 4 2017). 5 2. LCR roundtail chub (Gila robusta) are large minnows endemic to the 6 lower Colorado River basin with slender, silver bodies and forked tail fins. Decimated 7 by habitat degradation, non-native fish introductions, climate change, and other threats, 8 LCR roundtail chub now occupy only a fraction of their historic range. 9 3. In 2003, the Center petitioned to list the LCR roundtail chub and another 10 species, the headwater chub (Gila nigra), as threatened or endangered under the ESA. 11 Although the ESA generally requires listing of a species to occur within two years from 12 the submission of a petition, FWS delayed more than a decade before finally issuing a 13 proposed rule to protect both fish as threatened species. 80 Fed. Reg. 60,754 (Oct. 7, 14 2015). 15 4. Under FWS policy, a population of a species is considered a DPS when the 16 agency determines that such population is “discrete” (usually through geographic 17 separation) from other populations of the species and that such population is 18 “significant” to the conservation of the species as a whole. FWS applied that policy in 19 the 2015 proposed listing rule, concluding that the LCR roundtail chub comprises a DPS 20 because of its unique genetic lineage, its separation from roundtail chub in the upper 21 Colorado River basin by the Glen Canyon Dam, and because the loss of the species from 22 the lower basin would result in a significant gap in the range of the species. 23 5. However, rather than issue a final rule and provide the LCR roundtail chub 24 with the long overdue ESA protections it desperately needs, FWS reversed course and 25 withdrew the proposed rule based on a September 2016 determination by the American 26 Fisheries Society (“AFS”) that the roundtail chub, headwater chub, and Gila chub (Gila 27 intermedia) (currently listed as endangered under the ESA) should be reclassified and 28 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Page 2 Case 4:18-cv-00404-EJM Document 1 Filed 08/15/18 Page 3 of 19 1 combined as a single species referred to as the roundtail chub. 82 Fed. Reg. 16,982 2 (April 7, 2017). 3 6. In its withdrawal, FWS claims that under the AFS reclassification, the 4 LCR roundtail chub does not meet the definition of a species under the ESA. The 5 withdrawal, however, is bereft of any explanation for the agency’s reversal from its 6 previous finding in the proposed listing rule that the LCR roundtail chub is a threatened 7 DPS. Contrary to FWS’s determination, even under the new, combined species 8 reclassification, the LCR roundtail chub remains a threatened DPS, and continues to face 9 imminent and severe threats. These deficiencies render the withdrawal decision 10 arbitrary and capricious, and in violation of the ESA and APA. In making its 11 withdrawal decision, FWS also unlawfully ignored and failed to respond to comments 12 submitted by the Center and others that addressed these inadequacies in detail. 13 7. In order to remedy these ESA violations, the Center seeks an order 14 vacating FWS’s withdrawal of the proposed rule, and remanding the matter to FWS with 15 instructions to conduct a new status review of the LCR roundtail chub, and at the 16 conclusion of that status review, to issue a new 12-month finding regarding whether the 17 listing of the LCR roundtail chub as an endangered or threatened DPS is warranted, and 18 if such listing is warranted, directing FWS to timely issue a final listing rule. 19 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 20 8. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 21 1540(c) and (g) (action arising under ESA citizen suit provision); 5 U.S.C. § 702 (APA 22 review); and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction). 23 9. The Court may grant the relief requested under the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 24 1540(g); the APA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701–706; and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2002 (declaratory 25 and injunctive relief). 26 10. Plaintiff provided sixty (60) days’ notice of its intent to file this suit 27 pursuant to the citizen suit provision of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(2)(C), by letter to 28 Defendants dated May 7, 2018. Defendants have not taken action to remedy their Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Page 3 Case 4:18-cv-00404-EJM Document 1 Filed 08/15/18 Page 4 of 19 1 continuing ESA and APA violations by the date of this complaint’s filing. Therefore, an 2 actual controversy exists between the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 2201. 3 11. The federal government has waived sovereign immunity in this action 4 pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g) and 5 U.S.C. § 702. 5 12. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the District of 6 Arizona pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(3)(A) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because a 7 substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the Center’s claims occurred in 8 this District. Additionally, the Center resides in Tucson, Arizona. 9 PARTIES 10 13. Plaintiff CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY is a non-profit 11 environmental organization dedicated to the protection of native species and their 12 habitats through science, policy, and environmental law. The Center has more than 1.1 13 million members and on-line activists. 14 14. The Center’s members include individuals who regularly visit natural areas 15 which are occupied by roundtail chub, and seek to observe or study the roundtail chub in 16 its natural habitat. The Center’s members and staff derive recreational, spiritual, 17 professional, scientific, educational, and aesthetic benefit from these activities, and 18 intend to continue to use and enjoy these areas in the future. 19 15. The Center has a long history of environmental advocacy in relation to the 20 roundtail chub. The Center submitted its Petition to List the Roundtail and Headwater 21 Chubs as Endangered Species in the Lower Colorado River Basin in order to protect its 22 own and its members’ interests in the LCR roundtail chub. 23 16. The above-described aesthetic, recreational, professional, and other 24 interests of the Center and its members, have been, are being, and will continue to be 25 adversely harmed by Defendants’ decision to withdraw the proposed listing rule for the 26 LCR roundtail chub, and this harm would be remedied by a court order vacating that 27 decision. 28 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Page 4 Case 4:18-cv-00404-EJM Document 1 Filed 08/15/18 Page 5 of 19 1 17. Defendant RYAN ZINKE is the Secretary of the United States Department 2 of the Interior and is the federal official in whom the ESA vests final responsibility for 3 making decisions and promulgating regulations required by and in accordance with the 4 ESA, including listing determinations. Secretary Zinke is sued in his official capacity. 5 18. Defendant UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE is the 6 agency within the Department of the Interior that is charged with implementing the ESA 7 for the LCR roundtail chub. 8 LEGAL BACKGROUND 9 I. Endangered Species Act 10 19. The ESA, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531–1544, is “the most comprehensive 11 legislation for the preservation of endangered species ever enacted by any nation.” TVA 12 v. Hill, 437 U.S. 180 (1978). Its fundamental purposes are “to provide a means whereby 13 the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be 14 conserved [and] to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species 15 and threatened species . .” 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b). 16 20. ESA section 4 requires that the Secretary protect imperiled species by 17 listing them as either “endangered” or “threatened.” Id.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Roundtail Chub
    Roundtail Chub - Gila robusta Abundance: Rare Status: NSS1 (Aa) NatureServe: G3 S3 Population Status: Greatly restricted in numbers and distribution and extirpation is possible. Limiting Factor: The biggest limiting factor for roundtail chub is invasive species. This threat has significant impacts through competition and predation. The threat of invasive species is growing with introductions of new species and the expansion of existing species. This is particularly true of predatory fish. Population of roundtails in Wyoming are imperiled due to limited distribution and declines in numbers. Comment: NSS Ranks are reviewed and revised with each SWAP revision. No changes were made for this species in this revision. Introduction Roundtail chub, along with flannelmouth sucker Catostomus latipinnis, and bluehead sucker C. discobolus are all relatively large-bodied species native to the Colorado River drainage. These three imperiled fish are collectively called “the three species” and their conservation has been a cooperative effort spanning state lines (Utah Department of Natural Resources 2006, updated in 2011). Once common throughout the drainage, roundtail chub currently occupy approximately 45% of their historic range in the Colorado River Basin (Baxter and Stone 1995; Bezzerides and Bestgen 2002). They still occur in relatively low numbers throughout the Green River drainage of Wyoming, with lentic populations in the Finger Lakes of the New Fork Drainage (Baxter and Stone 1995; Gelwicks et al. 2009). Roundtail chubs are omnivorous. Larvae feed on diatoms and filamentous algae (Neve 1967). Juveniles feed on aquatic insects, crustaceans, and algae. (Bestgen 1985). Adults consume these food items as well as terrestrial gastropods, insects, and reptiles (Rinne 1992).
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtail Chub (Gila Robusta Robusta): a Technical Conservation Assessment
    Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta robusta): A Technical Conservation Assessment Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species Conservation Project May 3, 2005 David E. Rees, Jonathan A. Ptacek, and William J. Miller Miller Ecological Consultants, Inc. 1113 Stoney Hill Drive, Suite A Fort Collins, Colorado 80525-1275 Peer Review Administered by American Fisheries Society Rees, D.E., J.A. Ptacek, and W.J. Miller. (2005, May 3). Roundtail Chub (Gila robusta robusta): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http:// www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/roundtailchub.pdf [date of access]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank those people who promoted, assisted, and supported this species assessment for the Region 2 USDA Forest Service. Ryan Carr and Kellie Richardson conducted preliminary literature reviews and were valuable in the determination of important or usable literature. Laura Hillger provided assistance with report preparation and dissemination. Numerous individuals from Region 2 national forests were willing to discuss the status and management of this species. Thanks go to Greg Eaglin (Medicine Bow National Forest), Dave Gerhardt (San Juan National Forest), Kathy Foster (Routt National Forest), Clay Spease and Chris James (Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forest), Christine Hirsch (White River National Forest), as well as Gary Patton and Joy Bartlett from the Regional Office. Dan Brauh, Lory Martin, Tom Nesler, Kevin Rogers, and Allen Zincush, all of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, provided information on species distribution, management, and current regulations. AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES David E. Rees studied fishery biology, aquatic ecology, and ecotoxicology at Colorado State University where he received his B.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Edna Assay Development
    Environmental DNA assays available for species detection via qPCR analysis at the U.S.D.A Forest Service National Genomics Center for Wildlife and Fish Conservation (NGC). Asterisks indicate the assay was designed at the NGC. This list was last updated in June 2021 and is subject to change. Please contact [email protected] with questions. Family Species Common name Ready for use? Mustelidae Martes americana, Martes caurina American and Pacific marten* Y Castoridae Castor canadensis American beaver Y Ranidae Lithobates catesbeianus American bullfrog Y Cinclidae Cinclus mexicanus American dipper* N Anguillidae Anguilla rostrata American eel Y Soricidae Sorex palustris American water shrew* N Salmonidae Oncorhynchus clarkii ssp Any cutthroat trout* N Petromyzontidae Lampetra spp. Any Lampetra* Y Salmonidae Salmonidae Any salmonid* Y Cottidae Cottidae Any sculpin* Y Salmonidae Thymallus arcticus Arctic grayling* Y Cyrenidae Corbicula fluminea Asian clam* N Salmonidae Salmo salar Atlantic Salmon Y Lymnaeidae Radix auricularia Big-eared radix* N Cyprinidae Mylopharyngodon piceus Black carp N Ictaluridae Ameiurus melas Black Bullhead* N Catostomidae Cycleptus elongatus Blue Sucker* N Cichlidae Oreochromis aureus Blue tilapia* N Catostomidae Catostomus discobolus Bluehead sucker* N Catostomidae Catostomus virescens Bluehead sucker* Y Felidae Lynx rufus Bobcat* Y Hylidae Pseudocris maculata Boreal chorus frog N Hydrocharitaceae Egeria densa Brazilian elodea N Salmonidae Salvelinus fontinalis Brook trout* Y Colubridae Boiga irregularis Brown tree snake*
    [Show full text]
  • Population Status of Humpback Chub, Gila Cypha, and Catch
    Population Status of Humpback Chub, Gila cypha, and Catch Indices and Population Structure of Sympatric Roundtail Chub, Gila robusta, in Black Rocks, Colorado River, Colorado, 1998- 2012 Picture 1. Humpback chub on grid board (2012). Photo credit: T. Francis, USFWS. Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program Project Number 131 (22a3) Final Report April, 2016 Travis A. Francis U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Colorado River Fishery Project 445 West Gunnison Avenue, Suite 140 Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 -and- Dr. Kevin R. Bestgen Dr. Gary C. White Colorado State University Larval Fish Laboratory Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 i Suggested Citation: Francis, T.A., K.R. Bestgen, and G.C. White. 2016. Population status of humpback chub, Gila cypha, and catch indices and population structure of sympatric roundtail chub, Gila robusta, in Black Rocks, Colorado River, Colorado, 1998-2012. Larval Fish Laboratory Contribution 199. Final Report from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, Project Number 131. Grand Junction, Colorado. ii Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................... vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... vii INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River
    Volume 1 | Issue 2 | Summer 2015 Roundtail Chub Repatriated to the Blue River Inside this issue: With a fish exclusion barrier in place and a marked decline of catfish, the time was #TRENDINGNOW ................. 2 right for stocking Roundtail Chub into a remote eastern Arizona stream. New Initiative Launched for Southwest Native Trout.......... 2 On April 30, 2015, the Reclamation, and Marsh and Blue River. A total of 222 AZ 6-Species Conservation Department stocked 876 Associates LLC embarked on a Roundtail Chub were Agreement Renewal .............. 2 juvenile Roundtail Chub from mission to find, collect and stocked into the Blue River. IN THE FIELD ........................ 3 ARCC into the Blue River near bring into captivity some During annual monitoring, Recent and Upcoming AZGFD- the Juan Miller Crossing. Roundtail Chub for captive led Activities ........................... 3 five months later, Additional augmentation propagation from the nearest- Department staff captured Spikedace Stocked into Spring stockings to enhance the genetic neighbor population in Eagle Creek ..................................... 3 42 of the stocked chub, representation of the Blue River Creek. The Aquatic Research some of which had travelled BACK AT THE PONDS .......... 4 Roundtail Chub will be and Conservation Center as far as seven miles Native Fish Identification performed later this year. (ARCC) held and raised the upstream from the stocking Workshop at ARCC................ 4 offspring of those chub for Stockings will continue for the location. future stocking into the Blue next several years until that River. population is established in the Department biologists conducted annual Blue River and genetically In 2012, the partners delivered monitoring in subsequent mimics the wild source captive-raised juvenile years, capturing three chub population.
    [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]
  • ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES
    ECOLOGY of NORTH AMERICAN FRESHWATER FISHES Tables STEPHEN T. ROSS University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London © 2013 by The Regents of the University of California ISBN 978-0-520-24945-5 uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 1 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 2 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 1.1 Families Composing 95% of North American Freshwater Fish Species Ranked by the Number of Native Species Number Cumulative Family of species percent Cyprinidae 297 28 Percidae 186 45 Catostomidae 71 51 Poeciliidae 69 58 Ictaluridae 46 62 Goodeidae 45 66 Atherinopsidae 39 70 Salmonidae 38 74 Cyprinodontidae 35 77 Fundulidae 34 80 Centrarchidae 31 83 Cottidae 30 86 Petromyzontidae 21 88 Cichlidae 16 89 Clupeidae 10 90 Eleotridae 10 91 Acipenseridae 8 92 Osmeridae 6 92 Elassomatidae 6 93 Gobiidae 6 93 Amblyopsidae 6 94 Pimelodidae 6 94 Gasterosteidae 5 95 source: Compiled primarily from Mayden (1992), Nelson et al. (2004), and Miller and Norris (2005). uucp-ross-book-color.indbcp-ross-book-color.indb 3 44/5/13/5/13 88:34:34 AAMM TABLE 3.1 Biogeographic Relationships of Species from a Sample of Fishes from the Ouachita River, Arkansas, at the Confl uence with the Little Missouri River (Ross, pers. observ.) Origin/ Pre- Pleistocene Taxa distribution Source Highland Stoneroller, Campostoma spadiceum 2 Mayden 1987a; Blum et al. 2008; Cashner et al. 2010 Blacktail Shiner, Cyprinella venusta 3 Mayden 1987a Steelcolor Shiner, Cyprinella whipplei 1 Mayden 1987a Redfi n Shiner, Lythrurus umbratilis 4 Mayden 1987a Bigeye Shiner, Notropis boops 1 Wiley and Mayden 1985; Mayden 1987a Bullhead Minnow, Pimephales vigilax 4 Mayden 1987a Mountain Madtom, Noturus eleutherus 2a Mayden 1985, 1987a Creole Darter, Etheostoma collettei 2a Mayden 1985 Orangebelly Darter, Etheostoma radiosum 2a Page 1983; Mayden 1985, 1987a Speckled Darter, Etheostoma stigmaeum 3 Page 1983; Simon 1997 Redspot Darter, Etheostoma artesiae 3 Mayden 1985; Piller et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishes As a Template for Reticulate Evolution
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 12-2016 Fishes as a Template for Reticulate Evolution: A Case Study Involving Catostomus in the Colorado River Basin of Western North America Max Russell Bangs University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Evolution Commons, Molecular Biology Commons, and the Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Commons Recommended Citation Bangs, Max Russell, "Fishes as a Template for Reticulate Evolution: A Case Study Involving Catostomus in the Colorado River Basin of Western North America" (2016). Theses and Dissertations. 1847. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/1847 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Fishes as a Template for Reticulate Evolution: A Case Study Involving Catostomus in the Colorado River Basin of Western North America A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Biology by Max Russell Bangs University of South Carolina Bachelor of Science in Biological Sciences, 2009 University of South Carolina Master of Science in Integrative Biology, 2011 December 2016 University of Arkansas This dissertation is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. _____________________________________ Dr. Michael E. Douglas Dissertation Director _____________________________________ ____________________________________ Dr. Marlis R. Douglas Dr. Andrew J. Alverson Dissertation Co-Director Committee Member _____________________________________ Dr. Thomas F. Turner Ex-Officio Member Abstract Hybridization is neither simplistic nor phylogenetically constrained, and post hoc introgression can have profound evolutionary effects.
    [Show full text]
  • (Gila Elegans) (BONY) Basic Conceptual Ecological Model for the Lower Colorado River
    Bonytail (Gila elegans) (BONY) Basic Conceptual Ecological Model for the Lower Colorado River 2018 Updates 1. Eggs & Early Larvae G1-2 R5-1 S1-2 5. Spawning 2. Fry & Adults Juveniles S5-4 G2-4 G4-4 P4-5 S2-4 S4-4 4. Established Adults G3-4 3. Newly- S3-4 Stocked SHR Adults Photo courtesy of the Bureau of Reclamation March 2019 Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Steering Committee Members Federal Participant Group California Participant Group Bureau of Reclamation California Department of Fish and Wildlife U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service City of Needles National Park Service Coachella Valley Water District Bureau of Land Management Colorado River Board of California Bureau of Indian Affairs Bard Water District Western Area Power Administration Imperial Irrigation District Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Palo Verde Irrigation District Arizona Participant Group San Diego County Water Authority Southern California Edison Company Arizona Department of Water Resources Southern California Public Power Authority Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern Arizona Game and Fish Department California Arizona Power Authority Central Arizona Water Conservation District Cibola Valley Irrigation and Drainage District Nevada Participant Group City of Bullhead City City of Lake Havasu City Colorado River Commission of Nevada City of Mesa Nevada Department of Wildlife City of Somerton Southern Nevada Water Authority City of Yuma Colorado River Commission Power Users Electrical District
    [Show full text]
  • Classification Success of Species Within the Gila Robusta Complex Using Morphometric and Meristic Characters—A Reexamination Authors: Julie Meka Carter, Matthew J
    Classification Success of Species within the Gila robusta Complex Using Morphometric and Meristic Characters—A Reexamination Authors: Julie Meka Carter, Matthew J. Clement, Andy S. Makinster, Clayton D. Crowder, and Brian T. Hickerson Source: Copeia, 106(2) : 279-291 Published By: American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists URL: https://doi.org/10.1643/CG-17-614 BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses. Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Complete website, and all posted and associated content indicates your acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/terms-of-use. Usage of BioOne Complete 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. Downloaded From: https://bioone.org/journals/Copeia on 17 Jun 2019 Terms of Use: https://bioone.org/terms-of-use Access provided by Arizona Game & Fish Department Copeia 106, No. 2, 2018, 279–291 Classification Success of Species within the Gila robusta Complex Using Morphometric and Meristic Characters—A Reexamination Julie Meka Carter1, Matthew J. Clement2, Andy S. Makinster3,4, Clayton D. Crowder3, and Brian T. Hickerson3,5 Three cyprinids often referred to as the Gila robusta complex, G.
    [Show full text]
  • Roundtail Chub (Gila Robusta) Status Survey of the Lower Colorado River Basin
    ROUNDTAIL CHUB (GILA ROBUSTA) STATUS SURVEY OF THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER BASIN Jeremy B. Voeltz, Wildlife Technician Nongame Branch, Wildlife Management Division Final Report to The Central Arizona Project Native Fish Conservation and Nonnative Aquatic Species Management and Control Program U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services Field Office Phoenix, Arizona and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Phoenix Area Office Phoenix, Arizona Technical Report 186 Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Program Manager: Terry B. Johnson Arizona Game and Fish Department 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399 January 2002 CIVIL RIGHTS AND DIVERSITY COMPLIANCE The Arizona Game and Fish Commission receives federal financial assistance in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration. Under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, or disability. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information please write to: Arizona Game and Fish Department Office of the Deputy Director, DOHQ 2221 West Greenway Road Phoenix, Arizona 85023-4399 and The Office for Diversity and Civil Rights U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4040 North Fairfax Drive, Room 300 Arlington, Virginia 22203 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT COMPLIANCE The Arizona Game and Fish Department complies with all provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Headwater and Roundtail Chubs 12-Month Finding
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Questions and Answers: Headwater and Roundtail Chubs 12-month Finding Arizona Ecological Services Field Office http://arizonaes.fws.gov Q: What are roundtail and headwater chubs and where are they found? A: The headwater chub (Gila nigra) grows to 8 inches, is dark gray to brown with silvery sides and lives in the upper and middle reaches of moderately sized streams. Headwater chub occurred in a number of tributaries of the Verde River, most of the Tonto Creek drainage, much of the San Carlos River drainage, and parts of the upper Gila River in New Mexico. Today, they occur in the same areas, but have a smaller distribution. The 9- to 14-inch roundtail chub (Gila robusta) is an olive-gray to silver minnow with a lighter belly. The species was historically considered common in deep pools and eddies of large streams throughout its range in the upper and lower Colorado River basins in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona. The petition singles out the lower basin – Arizona and New Mexico – population for protection. This population today occupies about 18 percent of its historical range and is limited to Arizona’s Little Colorado, Bill Williams, Salt, San Carlos, and Verde river drainages and Aravaipa Creek, and New Mexico’s upper Gila River. Q: What is a 12-month finding? A: Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), citizens or groups can petition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to consider adding a species to the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Species.
    [Show full text]