DOCSLIB.ORG

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for the SAN LUIS VALLEY REGIONAL HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN July 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for the SAN LUIS VALLEY REGIONAL HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN July 2012 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE SAN LUIS VALLEY REGIONAL HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN July 2012 Prepared for: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services 764 Horizon Drive, Building B Grand Junction, Colorado 81506-3946 Prepared by: ERO Resources Corporation 1842 Clarkson Street Denver, Colorado 80218 Hill & Robbins, P.C. 100 Blake Street Building 1441 18th Street Denver, Colorado 80202-5932 1 2 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction, Purpose of and Need for Action ......................................................5 1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................5 1.2 Purpose and Need ..............................................................................................7 1.3 Legal and Policy Guidance ................................................................................8 1.4 HCP Scope .........................................................................................................8 1.5 Goals and Objectives .......................................................................................11 1.6 Public Participation ..........................................................................................11 2.0 Alternatives Including the Proposed Alternative.................................................13 2.1 Overview of Alternatives Considered ..............................................................13 2.2 No Action Alternative ......................................................................................13 2.3 Public Land Mitigation HCP Alternative ........................................................14 2.4 San Luis Valley Regional HCP – Proposed Alternative ..................................15 2.5 Alternatives and Concepts Considered and Eliminated from Analysis............................................................................................................17 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences .................................19 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................19 3.2 Water Resources ..............................................................................................19 3.3 Vegetation ........................................................................................................22 3.4 HCP Covered Species ......................................................................................26 3.5 Other Wildlife ..................................................................................................29 3.6 Cultural Resources ...........................................................................................34 3.7 Socioeconomic Setting.....................................................................................36 3.8 Land Use and Infrastructure.............................................................................38 3.9 Land Ownership and Management ..................................................................40 3.10 Habitat Conservation Efforts ...........................................................................44 3.11 Cumulative Effects...........................................................................................49 4.0 List of Preparers .....................................................................................................55 5.0 Consultation and Coordination .............................................................................56 3 Figures Figure 1. HCP Location ......................................................................................................6 Figure 2. Water Resources ................................................................................................20 Figure 3. Riparian Habitat and Covered Species ..............................................................23 Figure 4. Land Management Designations .......................................................................41 Figure 5. Existing Conservation Easements .....................................................................46 Tables Table 1. Comparative Summary of the Alternatives Evaluated. ......................................16 Table 2. Riparian Habitat Mapping Elements...................................................................22 Table 3. Wildlife Species of Concern in the San Luis Valley Plan Area. ........................30 Table 4. Socioeconomic and Demographic Statistics in the San Luis Valley. .................37 Table 5. CNHP-Designated Potential Conservation Areas. This table only includes PCAs that are located within the HCP plan area and contain riparian shrub habitat. ............................................................................................42 Table 6. Summary of Effects. ...........................................................................................47 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 Introduction The San Luis Valley (Valley) is a large intermountain basin in southern Colorado (Figure 1). The riparian communities1 along the Rio Grande, Conejos River, and smaller tributaries in the Valley provide habitat for two bird species addressed in the draft San Luis Valley Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP): the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) (flycatcher), listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), and the western U.S. distinct population segment of the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) (cuckoo), a candidate for listing under the ESA. These species are referred to as the covered species. Flycatchers and cuckoos generally occur in various types of woody riparian vegetation containing dense willow thickets adjacent to wet meadow habitat. The Rio Grande Water Conservation District (District), working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and other partners, has developed a draft regional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for the San Luis Valley. The District proposes to administer the HCP on behalf of the six counties2 that comprise the San Luis Valley floor (Alamosa, Conejos, Costilla, Mineral, Rio Grande, and Saguache (Counties)) and municipalities of Alamosa, Monte Vista, Del Norte, and South Fork in cooperation with the State of Colorado (State). The HCP provides for the long-term protection and conservation of the covered species while allowing for the continuation of ongoing and routine agriculture, community infrastructure, and riparian conservation and restoration activities (covered activities). The District and the State applied for and received grants from the Service’s Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund in 2004, 2005, and 2009 to complete the HCP and associated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation. This Environmental Assessment (EA) is a companion document to the HCP to fulfill the Service’s obligations under NEPA. The proposed federal action is the issuance of an incidental take permit (ITP) for the covered activities described in the HCP. The HCP is part of the application package supporting issuance of an ITP under Section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. § 1539), while the EA evaluates the impacts of the ITP issuance in accordance with NEPA. 1 Riparian habitat is generally defined as the plant communities found near streams and other bodies of water. In the Valley, riparian habitat is characterized by clusters of cottonwood and willow trees and shrubs surrounded by open water, wet meadows, and wetland areas (see Section 3.3). 2 While there are nine counties within the watershed basin, only the six on the Valley floor are parties to this HCP. 5 C O L O R a d o Denver 70 70 285 24 24 ColoRaDO Springs 285 Salida Canon City 50 HCP Area Pueblo 50 285 WestCLIffe 17 25 San Luis Valley MontE Walsenburg Vista Alamosa Fort GarLand 160 159 Trinidad 285 San Luis Valley HCP Figure 1 HCP Location 0 10 20 File: FIG1_Location.pdf Miles ± April 2011 1.2 Purpose and Need Purpose The purpose of the proposed HCP/ITP is to provide incidental take coverage for ongoing, typical, and routine agricultural, infrastructure, and conservation activities that are critical to the social and economic well-being of the Valley. To achieve this purpose, the HCP must satisfy the issuance criteria for incidental take coverage that are outlined in Section 10(a)(2)(B) of the ESA. The purposes of the draft HCP/ITP also include the following: • Provide ESA coverage and regulatory assurances for a variety of agricultural, infrastructure, and restoration activities that are critical to the Valley’s economy • Provide ESA coverage for Counties, State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) agencies3, quasi-municipal corporations (A public entity created by law to deliver limited public services; includes water conservation districts and other special districts), municipalities, and all private landowners in the Valley when they conduct the covered activities • Provide ESA coverage and regulatory assurances for activities related to the delivery and administration of water resources in the Valley • Provide for a long-term, holistic conservation strategy for the covered species and their habitat that emphasizes the protection and enhancement of high-quality habitat • Provide a cost-effective approach to integrating listed species protection, ESA compliance, and habitat conservation in a rural setting Need The flycatcher and cuckoo inhabit riparian areas that occur throughout the Valley. A variety of routine agricultural, infrastructure, and conservation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Rio Grande National Forest Draft Assessment 5 At-Risk Species
    Rio Grande National Forest- Draft Assessment 5 Identifying and Assessing At-risk Species Rio Grande National Forest Draft Assessment 5 Identifying and Assessing At-risk Species Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Information Sources and Gaps .............................................................................................................. 2 Existing Forest Plan Direction .............................................................................................................. 2 Scale of Analysis (Area of Influence) ................................................................................................... 4 Assessment 5 Development Process ..................................................................................................... 4 Federally Recognized Species .................................................................................................................. 6 Uncompahgre Fritillary Butterfly ......................................................................................................... 6 Black-footed Ferret ............................................................................................................................... 8 Canada Lynx ....................................................................................................................................... 11 New Mexico Meadow Jumping Mouse .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rio Costilla Habitat Improvement Project
    Decision Memo Rio Costilla Habitat Improvement Project USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region Questa Ranger District, Carson National Forest Taos County, New Mexico (Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 14, and 15 of Township 30 North, Range 15 East) Background An interdisciplinary analysis on this project was conducted and is documented in a project record. Source documents from the project record are incorporated by reference throughout this decision memo by showing the document number in brackets [PR #]. Please refer to Appendix A for the project record index. The Questa Ranger District of the Carson National Forest, in partnership with the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, proposes to improve in- stream habitat conditions within the Rio Costilla [PR #77, 128]. The Valle Vidal Unit of the Carson National Forest attracts hundreds of anglers annually. The Rio Costilla is the largest stream in the Valle Vidal and a favorite among anglers. Anglers travel to this area in large part to pursue the native Rio Grande cutthroat trout. Long-term operations of the Costilla Reservoir and Dam have channelized the Rio Costilla, which has become inadequate for holding fish during low-flow conditions and through the winter. The Rio Costilla has become shallow and wide in many spots, and future efforts to re-establish self-sustaining populations of Rio Grande cutthroat trout may not be successful without active management. Since 2001, Rio Grande cutthroat trout and other native fish population restoration efforts have been ongoing within the upper Rio Costilla watershed. Restoration efforts in this section of the Rio Costilla have included the construction of the Rio Costilla terminal fish barrier in October 2016.
    [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]
  • AUGUST 20, 2020 Becky Leinweber Executive Director
    AUGUST 20, 2020 Becky Leinweber Executive Director Pikes Peak Outdoor Recreation Alliance LAST WEEK, PART ONE: Current Realities & Future Outlook of Recreation in the Pikes Peak Region WELCOME TO PART TWO: Successful Strategies for Sustainable Outdoor Recreation & Tourism THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS! Hosting Partner Summit Sponsor THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS! Devil’s Playground Sponsor Barr Camp Sponsor Media Sponsors David Leinweber Chairman Pikes Peak Outdoor Recreation Alliance TOP ISSUES FACING THE PIKES PEAK REGION’S OUTDOORS PIKES PEAK MULTI-USE PLAN Created: September 1999 Do we scrap this plan or complete it? Challenges? Opportunities! Chris Castilian Executive Director Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) WELCOME Strategic Plan Open House Meeting Roadmap Celebrate GOCO 101 Proposed vision for2020 and beyond Survey: What do you think? Coming up… Southwest ConservationCorps GOCO Supported Projects in Rio Grande County MonteVista Community Sports Complex South Fork Rio Grande Park RiverValley Ranch/Rio Grande Legacy Colorado Wetlands InitiativeLegacy Ski-Hi Rodeo Arena &Grandstand renovation Del Norte Area Trails Master Plan Natural Wonders of the San Luis Valley Play Park Ski Hi Rodeo Arena GOCO’s Mission To help the people of Colorado preserve, protect, enhance, and manage the state’s wildlife, park, river, trails, and open space heritage. Rio Grande Healthy Living Park, Alamosa Lottery Beneficiaries 40% 50% or cap 10% “spillover” Funding Equally Across Program Areas Why We’re Here Today Chapman Park, Monte Vista What GOCOWants We want to
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of Electrofishing Fish Surveys and Angler Observation on Three Reaches of the Upper Rio Grande Barry Weinstock
    University of New Mexico UNM Digital Repository Water Resources Professional Project Reports Water Resources 2014 Comparison of Electrofishing Fish Surveys and Angler Observation on Three Reaches of the Upper Rio Grande Barry Weinstock Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/wr_sp Recommended Citation Weinstock, Barry. "Comparison of Electrofishing Fish Surveys and Angler Observation on Three Reaches of the Upper Rio Grande." (2014). https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/wr_sp/107 This Presentation is brought to you for free and open access by the Water Resources at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Water Resources Professional Project Reports by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Comparison of Electrofishing Fish Surveys and Angler Observation on Three Reaches of the Upper Rio Grande by Barry Weinstock Committee Dr. Bruce M. Thomson, Chair Dr. William M. Fleming Eric Frey A Professional Project Proposal Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degrees of Master of Water Resources, Water Resources Program and Master Community and Regional Planning, School of Architecture and Planning The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico July 2014 i Committee Approval The Master of Water Resources and Master of Community and Regional Planning Professional Project Report of Barry Weinstock, entitled Comparison of Electrofishing Fish Surveys and Angler Observation on Three Reaches of the Upper Rio Grande, is approved by the committee: ________________________________________ ____________________ Chair Date ________________________________________ ____________________ ________________________________________ ____________________ ________________________________________ ____________________ ________________________________________ ____________________ i Acknowledgements I would like to thank my committee. Dr. Bruce Thomson and Dr.
    [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]
  • Guidelines for Determining 100-Year Flood Flows for Approximate Floodplains in Colorado
    Guidelines For Determining 100-Year Flood Flows For Approximate Floodplains in Colorado Version 6.0 Department of Natural Resources Colorado Water Conservation Board Flood Protection Program 1313 Sherman Street, Room 721 Denver, Colorado 80203 www.cwcb.state.co.us June 2004 1 Guidelines For Determining 100-Year Flood Flows For Approximate Floodplains in Colorado Version 6.0 Prepared by: Thomas W. Browning, Colorado Water Conservation Board In cooperation with the Colorado Flood Hydrology Advisory Committee Department of Natural Resources Colorado Water Conservation Board Flood Protection Program 1313 Sherman Street, Room 721 Denver, Colorado 80203 www.cwcb.state.co.us June 2004 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The publication entitled Guidelines for Determining 100-Year Flood Flows for Approximate Floodplains in Colorado (Guidelines) was prepared by Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) staff as a tool for estimating 100-year flood discharges for approximate floodplains where detailed engineering analyses are limited or unavailable. The Guidelines are designed to provide a streamlined hydrologic procedure for use in the review and designation of approximate floodplain studies and mapping in Colorado. The Guidelines facilitate the estimation of 100-year flood discharges for approximate floodplains as required by the CWCB's technical standards. Many of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM’s) and Flood Hazard Boundary Maps (FHBM's) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Flood Insurance Administration (FIA) include approximate floodplain delineations within Colorado. Those approximate delineations do not have detailed hydrologic information to accompany them and were therefore not previously designated and approved by the CWCB. However, Colorado statutes require that floodplain information to be used by local governments for land use and regulatory purposes must first be designated and approved by the CWCB.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishtraits: a Database on Ecological and Life-History Traits of Freshwater
    FishTraits database Traits References Allen, D. M., W. S. Johnson, and V. Ogburn-Matthews. 1995. Trophic relationships and seasonal utilization of saltmarsh creeks by zooplanktivorous fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 42(1)37-50. [multiple species] Anderson, K. A., P. M. Rosenblum, and B. G. Whiteside. 1998. Controlled spawning of Longnose darters. The Progressive Fish-Culturist 60:137-145. [678] Barber, W. E., D. C. Williams, and W. L. Minckley. 1970. Biology of the Gila Spikedace, Meda fulgida, in Arizona. Copeia 1970(1):9-18. [485] Becker, G. C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI. Belk, M. C., J. B. Johnson, K. W. Wilson, M. E. Smith, and D. D. Houston. 2005. Variation in intrinsic individual growth rate among populations of leatherside chub (Snyderichthys copei Jordan & Gilbert): adaptation to temperature or length of growing season? Ecology of Freshwater Fish 14:177-184. [349] Bonner, T. H., J. M. Watson, and C. S. Williams. 2006. Threatened fishes of the world: Cyprinella proserpina Girard, 1857 (Cyprinidae). Environmental Biology of Fishes. In Press. [133] Bonnevier, K., K. Lindstrom, and C. St. Mary. 2003. Parental care and mate attraction in the Florida flagfish, Jordanella floridae. Behavorial Ecology and Sociobiology 53:358-363. [410] Bortone, S. A. 1989. Notropis melanostomus, a new speices of Cyprinid fish from the Blackwater-Yellow River drainage of northwest Florida. Copeia 1989(3):737-741. [575] Boschung, H.T., and R. L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books, Washington. [multiple species] 1 FishTraits database Breder, C. M., and D. E. Rosen. 1966. Modes of reproduction in fishes.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Wetland Condition on the Rio Grande National Forest
    Assessment of Wetland Condition on the Rio Grande National Forest October 2012 Colorado Natural Heritage Program Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 Assessment of Wetland Condition on the Rio Grande National Forest Prepared for: USDA Forest Service Rio Grande National Forest 1803 W. Highway 160 Monte Vista, CO 81144 Prepared by: Joanna Lemly Colorado Natural Heritage Program Warner College of Natural Resources Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523 All photos taken by Colorado Natural Heritage Program Staff. Copyright © 2012 Colorado State University Colorado Natural Heritage Program All Rights Reserved EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Rio Grande National Forest (RGNF) covers 1.83 million acres in south central Colorado and contains the very headwaters of the Rio Grande River. The Forest’s diverse geography creates a template for equally diverse wetlands, which provide important ecological services to both the RGNF and lands downstream. Though now recognized as a vital component of the landscape, many wetlands have been altered by a range of human land uses since European settlement. Across the RGNF, mining, logging, reservoirs, water diversions, grazing, and recreation have all impacted wetlands. In order to adequately manage and protect wetland resources on the RGNF, reliable data are needed on their location, extent and condition. Between 2008 and 2011, Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) partnered with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) on a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funded effort to map and assess the condition of wetlands throughout the Rio Grande Headwaters River Basin, which includes the RGNF. Existing paper maps of wetlands created by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)’s National Wetland Inventory (NWI) program were converted to digital data by GIS Analysts at CPW.
    [Show full text]
  • Water-Quality Assessment of the Rio Grande Valley, Colorado, New Mexico, 7.Nd Texas--Fish Communities at Selected Sites, 993-95
    Water-Quality Assessment of the Rio Grande Valley, Colorado, New Mexico, 7.nd Texas--Fish Communities at Selected Sites, 993-95 By Lisa F. Carter U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4017 Albuquerque, New Mexico 1997 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director Any use of firm, trade, or brand names in this report is for identification purposes only and does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Branch of Information Services Water Resources Division Box 25286 4501 Indian School Road NE, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80225-0286 Albuquerque, NM 87110-3929 Information regarding the National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program is available on the Internet via the World Wide Web. You may connect to the NAWQA Home Page using the Universal Resource Locator (URL) at: <http://wwwrvares.er.usgs.gov/nawcia/nawcia_home.html > /the U.S. Geological Su This information will help st he de\ elopment USGS is the quantity and quality o': and e of mar Jlatory, and moni- earth resources of the Nation and to provide informa- toring det,„3ions by milt Federd, 3tate, and local tion that will assist resource managers and policymak- agencies to protect, use, and enhance water resources. ers at Federal, State, and local levels in making sound The goals of the NAWQA Program are being decisions. Assessment of water-quality conditions and achieved through ongoing and proposed investigations trends is an important part of this overall mission.
    [Show full text]