DOCSLIB.ORG

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for the DESIGNATION of CRITICAL HABITAT for the CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for the DESIGNATION of CRITICAL HABITAT for the CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for the DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT for the CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG Prepared by Mangi Environmental Group For the Department of Interior U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG March 2012 Lead Agency: Department of the Interior—United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Cooperating Agencies: Arizona Game and Fish Department Contact Person: Steve Spangle, Field Supervisor United States Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021 602-242-2513 (fax) Summary The purpose of this environmental assessment (EA) is to identify and disclose the environmental consequences resulting from the Proposed Action of designating critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog (Lithobates chiricahuensis), listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended. The need for the Proposed Action is to comply with the ESA and with a May 6, 2009 order from the Arizona District Court to designate critical habitat if the Secretary determined such a designation was prudent. The physical and biological features of critical habitat in stream and riverine lotic (actively moving water) systems are contained within the riverine and riparian ecosystems formed by the wetted channel and adjacent floodplains within 328 lateral ft (100 lateral m) on either side of bankfull stage. The use of bankfull stage and 328 ft (100 m) on either side recognizes the naturally dynamic nature of riverine systems, recognizes that floodplains are an integral part of the stream ecosystem, and contains the features essential to the conservation of the species. In ponds proposed as critical habitat, most of which are impoundments for watering cattle or other livestock, proposed critical habitat extends for 20 ft (6.1 m) beyond the high water line or to the boundary of the riparian and upland vegetation edge, whichever is greatest. The frogs are commonly found foraging and basking within 20 ft (6.1 m) of the shoreline of tanks. In addition, critical habitat extends upstream from ponds from the extent of the boundary for 328 ft (100 m) from the high water line. 2 Three alternatives were considered: the No Action Alternative, under which no critical habitat would be designated; Alternative A, Proposed Designation without exclusions; and Alternative B, Proposed Designation with exclusions. Alternative A consists of 43 units as critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog. All 43 units in Alternative A are within the species’ geographical range, including areas occupied at the time of listing and areas not known to be occupied at the time of listing but identified as essential for the conservation of the species. The proposed critical habitat locations are distributed between six different watershed drainage areas within Arizona and New Mexico. All proposed critical habitat units contain sufficient PCEs to support at least one life-history function. In addition, all but two proposed critical habitat units, units 13 and 17, are currently occupied by Chiricahua leopard frogs. Units 13 and 17 were occupied at the time of listing and currently contain sufficient PCEs to support life-history functions essential for the conservation of the species. These units are needed as future sites for frog colonization or reestablishment and could be restored (e.g., control of nonnative predators) to allow Chiricahua leopard frog persistence with a reasonable level of effort. The proposed critical habitat designation includes lands under Federal (59%), state (4%), and private (37%) land ownership. Much of the Federal land is managed by the USDA Forest Service, in 5 National Forests: Apache Sitgreaves, Coconino, Coronado, Gila, and Tonto. Alternative B includes the areas included in Alternative A, minus 1,647 ac (667 ha) of lands that meet the definition of critical habitat would be excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final critical habitat rule. The areas that would be wholly or partially excluded are based on considerations outlined in section 4(b)(2) of the Act, and described below for each unit. The exclusions are associated with the following conservation programs: Arizona Game and Fish Department Safe Harbor Agreement; Malpai Borderlands Group Safe Harbor Agreement; Malpai Borderlands Group Habitat Conservation Plan; and established conservation easements. The environmental issues identified by federal agencies and the public during the initial public comment period and during resource analysis were those raised by the types of actions taken by land management agencies in the region: fire management, water resource management, aquatic habitat restoration, recreation, livestock grazing, other land management and use. The designation of critical habitat for the Chiricahua leopard frog would not have direct impacts on the environment; designation is not expected to impose land use restrictions or prohibit land use activities. However, the designation of critical habitat would (1) increase the number of additional section 7 consultations for proposed projects within designated critical habitat, (2) increase the number of re-initiated section 7 consultations for ongoing projects within designated critical habitat, (3) maintain Chiricahua leopard frog primary constitutent elements, (4) increase the likelihood of greater expenditures of time and federal funds of government agencies to develop measures to prevent both adverse effects to the species and adverse modification to critical habitat, and (5) indirectly increase the likelihood of greater expenditure of non-federal funds by project proponents to complete section 7 consultations and to develop reasonable and prudent alternatives (as a result of adverse modifications) that maintain critical habitat. Such an increase might occur if there was a federal nexus only to unoccupied units, or from the addition of adverse modification analysis to jeopardy consultations in occupied units. 3 Contents ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................. 8 GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................... 9 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION .......................................................... 11 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 11 1.2 Purpose and Need of the Action ..................................................................................... 11 1.3 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. 12 1.4 Background .................................................................................................................... 12 1.4.1 Critical Habitat ........................................................................................................ 12 1.4.1.1 Provisions of the ESA ......................................................................................... 12 1.4.1.2 Section 4(b)(2) Exclusion Process ...................................................................... 13 1.4.1.3 Section 7 Consultation Process ........................................................................... 13 1.4.2 Chiricahua Leopard Frog ........................................................................................ 16 1.4.2.1 Physical and Biological Features for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog ................... 17 1.4.2.2 Primary Constituent Elements for the Chiricahua Leopard Frog ........................ 17 1.5 Permits Required for Implementation ............................................................................ 18 1.6 Related Laws, Authorizations, and Plans ....................................................................... 18 1.7 Issues and Concerns from Public Comments ................................................................. 19 1.8 Topics Analyzed in Detail in this Environmental Assessment ...................................... 20 1.8.1 Mandatory Topics Dismissed from Detailed Analysis ........................................... 20 1.9 Decision to be Made ....................................................................................................... 23 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE .............. 24 2.1 Development of Alternatives ......................................................................................... 24 2.2 No Action Alternative .................................................................................................... 24 2.3 Alternative A—Critical Habitat Designation with no exclusions .................................. 25 2.4 Alternative B—Critical Habitat Designation with Exclusion Areas .............................. 28 2.5 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed from Further Analysis ..................................... 29 2.5.1 Development of Conservation Agreements ........................................................ 29 2.5.2 Land Acquisition or Conservation Easements .................................................... 30 4 2.6 Comparison of Potential Impacts of Chiricahua Leopard Frog Proposed Critical Habitat Designation ..............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Verde Watershed Fisheries Management Plan Inside This Issue: Beginning in 2013, the Arizona Game and Fish Department Led a Multi-Agency Team #TRENDINGNOW
    Volume 1 | Issue 3 | September 2015 Verde Watershed Fisheries Management Plan Inside this issue: Beginning in 2013, the Arizona Game and Fish Department led a multi-agency team #TRENDINGNOW ................. 2 that was tasked with developing a watershed-based, fisheries management plan A New Conservation Tool: the for the entire Verde River watershed that would balance sport fish opportunities Chub CCAA ........................... 2 and native fish conservation. That watershed plan is nearing completion. Apache Trout Research ......... 2 IN THE FIELD ........................ 3 The Verde Watershed Fisheries that resources will typically be be available to the public Management Plan was applied to address the primary online at www.azgfd.gov. Recent and Upcoming AZGFD- developed using the emphasis first. led Activities ........................... 3 The Verde Watershed Department’s new Watershed- Gartersnake and Leopard Frog A Verde Watershed Fisheries Fisheries Management Plan is based Fish Management Recovery Updates ................. 3 Process. This process is Management Plan web map the first plan developed using systematic, data-driven, and was developed as the main this process. The team also BACK AT THE PONDS .......... 4 communication tool for evaluated the effectiveness of addresses socio-political Desert Fish Research and concerns. Department fisheries and the planning process, and Recovery at ARCC ................ 4 aquatic management decisions provided recommendations The team—which included in the Verde River watershed. for future watershed-based state and federal biologists— The web map displays each fish management planning delineated management units individual management unit efforts. and identified a primary and on an interactive map, secondary management allowing users to easily The Verde Watershed emphasis for each unit so that identify high-priority Fisheries Management Plan is more specific prescriptions management units and the in the final stages of review under those categories could primary emphasis for that unit.
    [Show full text]
  • LITTLE COLORADO RIVER SPINEDACE, Lepidomeda Vitata RECOVERY PLAN
    DRAFT LITTLE COLORADO RIVER SPINEDACE, Lepidomeda vitata RECOVERY PLAN prepared by: C.O. Minckley U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 2 Parker Fishery Resource Office, Parker, Arizona 85344 August 1994 for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico ' DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions which are believed to be required to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be 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. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approvals of any individuals or agencies (involved in the plan formulation), other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 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. ...) i ' ,4 , ' P DRAF1- ig l Li &a-liATION8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 199. Little Colorado River spinedace, Lepidomeda vittata Recovery Plan. Phoenix, AZ pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service: 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 301/492-6403 or 1-800-582-3421 The fee for the Plan varies depending on the number of pages of the Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 80 Monday, No. 55 March 23, 2015 Pages 15147–15502
    Vol. 80 Monday, No. 55 March 23, 2015 Pages 15147–15502 OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL REGISTER VerDate Sep 11 2014 19:07 Mar 20, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4710 Sfmt 4710 E:\FR\FM\23MRWS.LOC 23MRWS asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with FRONTMATTER II Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 55 / Monday, March 23, 2015 The FEDERAL REGISTER (ISSN 0097–6326) is published daily, SUBSCRIPTIONS AND COPIES Monday through Friday, except official holidays, by the Office PUBLIC of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington, DC 20408, under the Federal Register Subscriptions: Act (44 U.S.C. Ch. 15) and the regulations of the Administrative Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 Committee of the Federal Register (1 CFR Ch. I). The Assistance with public subscriptions 202–512–1806 Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, Washington, DC 20402 is the exclusive distributor of the official General online information 202–512–1530; 1–888–293–6498 edition. Periodicals postage is paid at Washington, DC. Single copies/back copies: The FEDERAL REGISTER provides a uniform system for making Paper or fiche 202–512–1800 available to the public regulations and legal notices issued by Assistance with public single copies 1–866–512–1800 Federal agencies. These include Presidential proclamations and (Toll-Free) Executive Orders, Federal agency documents having general FEDERAL AGENCIES applicability and legal effect, documents required to be published Subscriptions: by act of Congress, and other Federal agency documents of public interest. Assistance with Federal agency subscriptions: Documents are on file for public inspection in the Office of the Email [email protected] Federal Register the day before they are published, unless the Phone 202–741–6000 issuing agency requests earlier filing.
    [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]
  • Parker Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan
    Parker Fisheries Resource Office Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan Little Colorado River Spinedace Lepidomeda vittata Recovery Plan prepared by: C. 0. Minckley U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Parker Fishery Resource Office, Parker, Arizona 85344 October 1997 for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico Approved: ~~~ector Regi Date: r~IAN 09 1998 Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions believed necessary to recover and/or protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available, subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the stakeholders involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approvals ofany individuals or agencies (involved in the plan formulation), other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They represent the official position ofthe U.S. Fish and Wildlife 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 ofrecovery tasks. Little Colorado River Spinedace Recovery Plan LITERATURE CITATION U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Little Colorado River spinedace, Lepido-meda vittata Recovery Plan. Albuquerque NM. 51 pp. Additional copies may be purchased from: Fish and Wildlife Reference Service: 5430 Grosvenor Lane, Suite 110 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 301/492-6403 or 800/582-3421 Fees charged for Recovery Plans vary depending on the number of Plans requested.
    [Show full text]
  • CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG (Lithobates [Rana] Chiricahuensis)
    CHIRICAHUA LEOPARD FROG (Lithobates [Rana] chiricahuensis) Chiricahua Leopard Frog from Sycamore Canyon, Coronado National Forest, Arizona Photograph by Jim Rorabaugh, USFWS CONSIDERATIONS FOR MAKING EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REDUCING AND AVOIDING ADVERSE EFFECTS Developed by the Southwest Endangered Species Act Team, an affiliate of the Southwest Strategy Funded by U.S. Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program December 2008 (Updated August 31, 2009) ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This document was developed by members of the Southwest Endangered Species Act (SWESA) Team comprised of representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BoR), Department of Defense (DoD), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), National Park Service (NPS) and U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Dr. Terry L. Myers gathered and synthesized much of the information for this document. The SWESA Team would especially like to thank Mr. Steve Sekscienski, U.S. Army Environmental Center, DoD, for obtaining the funds needed for this project, and Dr. Patricia Zenone, USFWS, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, for serving as the Contracting Officer’s Representative for this grant. Overall guidance, review, and editing of the document was provided by the CMED Subgroup of the SWESA Team, consisting of: Art Coykendall (BoR), John Nystedt (USFWS), Patricia Zenone (USFWS), Robert L. Palmer (DoD, U.S. Navy), Vicki Herren (BLM), Wade Eakle (USACE), and Ronnie Maes (USFS). The cooperation of many individuals facilitated this effort, including: USFWS: Jim Rorabaugh, Jennifer Graves, Debra Bills, Shaula Hedwall, Melissa Kreutzian, Marilyn Myers, Michelle Christman, Joel Lusk, Harold Namminga; USFS: Mike Rotonda, Susan Lee, Bryce Rickel, Linda WhiteTrifaro; USACE: Ron Fowler, Robert Dummer; BLM: Ted Cordery, Marikay Ramsey; BoR: Robert Clarkson; DoD, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
    Tuesday, August 9, 2005 Part III Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Listing Roswell springsnail, Koster’s springsnail, Noel’s amphipod, and Pecos assiminea as Endangered With Critical Habitat; Final Rule VerDate jul<14>2003 18:26 Aug 08, 2005 Jkt 205001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\09AUR2.SGM 09AUR2 46304 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 9, 2005 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: in coastal brackish waters or along tropical and temperate seacoasts Background Fish and Wildlife Service worldwide (Taylor 1987). Inland species It is our intent to discuss only those of the genus Assiminea are known from 50 CFR Part 17 topics directly relevant to this final around the world, and in North America listing determination. For more RIN 1018–AI15 they occur in California (Death Valley information on the four invertebrates, National Monument), Utah, New Endangered and Threatened Wildlife refer to the February 12, 2002, proposed Mexico, Texas (Pecos and Reeves and Plants; Listing Roswell rule (67 FR 6459). However, some of Counties), and Mexico (Bolso´n de springsnail, Koster’s springsnail, this information is discussed in our Cuatro Cı´enegas). Noel’s amphipod, and Pecos analyses below, such as the summary of The Roswell springsnail and Koster’s assiminea as Endangered With Critical factors affecting the species. springsnail are aquatic species. These Habitat Springsnails snails have lifespans of 9 to 15 months and reproduce several times during the AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, The Permian Basin of the spring through fall breeding season Interior.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service
    Monday, November 9, 2009 Part III Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:08 Nov 06, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\09NOP3.SGM 09NOP3 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS3 57804 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 215 / Monday, November 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR October 1, 2008, through September 30, for public inspection by appointment, 2009. during normal business hours, at the Fish and Wildlife Service We request additional status appropriate Regional Office listed below information that may be available for in under Request for Information in 50 CFR Part 17 the 249 candidate species identified in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. General [Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2009-0075; MO- this CNOR. information we receive will be available 9221050083–B2] DATES: We will accept information on at the Branch of Candidate this Candidate Notice of Review at any Conservation, Arlington, VA (see Endangered and Threatened Wildlife time. address above). and Plants; Review of Native Species ADDRESSES: This notice is available on Candidate Notice of Review That Are Candidates for Listing as the Internet at http:// Endangered or Threatened; Annual www.regulations.gov, and http:// Background Notice of Findings on Resubmitted endangered.fws.gov/candidates/ The Endangered Species Act of 1973, Petitions; Annual Description of index.html.
    [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]