DOCSLIB.ORG

PDF Aprox. 3.2 MB

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PDF Aprox. 3.2 MB + Draft Environmental Assessment O’Donnell Canyon Dam Stabilization and Fish Barrier Project Santa Cruz County, Arizona U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Phoenix Area Office December 2015 Mission Statements The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and supplies the energy to power our future. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality BA Biological Assessment BLM Bureau of Land Management BO Biological Opinion CAA Clean Air Act CAP Central Arizona Project CE Conservation Easement CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CFS Cubic feet per second cm Centimeter CMA Cooperative Management Area CNF Coronado National Forest DPS Distinct Population Segment USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CWA Clean Water Act cy Cubic yard DOI Department of the Interior EA Environmental Assessment EO Executive Order EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FR Forest Road FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act GHG Greenhouse gas km2 Square kilometer MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act mm millimeter NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NCA National Conservation Area NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act OHV Off-highway vehicle PL Public Law PM2.5 Particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less PM10 Particulate matter with a diameter less than 10 microns PCE Primary constituent elements Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation RMP Resource Management Plan SHPO State Historic Preservation Office TNC The Nature Conservancy USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED .................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background .................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ......................................................................................... 2 1.4 Project Location ............................................................................................................. 3 1.5 Decision Framework ...................................................................................................... 3 1.6 Consistency with BLM Resource Management Plans ................................................... 3 1.7 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................ 4 CHAPTER 2 - DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES .................................................. 7 2.1 No Action ....................................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Proposed Action (Upper BLM Dam Abutment Stabilization) ...................................... 7 2.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Analysis ......................................................... 12 CHAPTER 3 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .................................................... 14 3.1 Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 14 3.1.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................... 14 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................... 15 3.2 Geology and Soils ........................................................................................................ 16 3.2.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................... 16 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................... 18 3.3 Water Resources .......................................................................................................... 19 3.3.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................... 19 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................... 20 3.4 Biological Resources ................................................................................................... 20 3.4.1 Affected Environment - Vegetation ...................................................................... 20 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences - Vegetation .......................................................... 21 3.4.3 Affected Environment – Invasive Weeds ............................................................. 23 3.4.4 Environmental Consequences – Invasive Weeds ................................................. 25 3.4.5 Affected Environment - Terrestrial Wildlife ........................................................ 29 3.4.6 Environmental Consequences - Terrestrial Wildlife ............................................. 30 3.4.7 Affected Environment - Fish and Aquatic Wildlife .............................................. 31 3.4.8 Environmental Consequences - Fish and Aquatic Wildlife .................................. 31 3.4.9 Affected Environment - Federally Listed Species ................................................ 33 3.4.10 Environmental Consequences - Federally Listed Species .................................. 42 3.4.11 Affected Environment – Special Status Species ................................................. 45 3.4.12 Environmental Consequences – Special Status Species ..................................... 55 3.5 Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................... 56 3.5.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................... 56 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................... 58 3.6 Air Quality ................................................................................................................... 58 3.6.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................... 58 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................... 59 i Draft Environmental Assessment O’Donnell Canyon Dam Stabilization/Fish Barrier Project 3.7 Hazardous Material and Solid Waste ........................................................................... 60 3.7.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................... 60 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................... 60 3.8 Environmental Justice .................................................................................................. 61 3.8.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................... 61 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................... 61 3.9 Indian Trust Assets ...................................................................................................... 61 3.9.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................... 61 3.9.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................... 62 CHAPTER 4 – MITIGATION MEASURES ......................................................................... 63 CHAPTER 5 – CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ............................................... 64 CHAPTER 6 – LIST OF PREPARERS ................................................................................. 66 CHAPTER 7 – RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS/DIRECTIVES ............................. 67 CHAPTER 8 – LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................. 72 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project location map. ................................................................................................ 5 Figure 2. Upper BLM dam location and proposed staging area. ............................................. 6 Figure 3. Plan view of proposed wing wall extension at upper BLM dam ............................. 8 Figure 4. Profile view of proposed wing wall extension at upper BLM dam .......................... 9 Figure 5. Proposed pedestrian access route ........................................................................... 10 Figure 6. Potential construction impacts areas at upper BLM dam ....................................... 11 Figure 7. View of bedrock in the channel downstream of the upper BLM dam ................... 17 Figure 8. View of headcut erosion in the terrace near the right abutment of the dam ........... 17 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Estimated instantaneous peak flood flow at the upper BLM dam. .......................... 20 Table 2. Vegetation impacts (acres) from proposed action ................................................... 23 Table 3. Federally
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]
  • Quantitative PCR Assays for Detecting Loach Minnow (Rhinichthys Cobitis) and Spikedace (Meda Fulgida) in the Southwestern United States
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Quantitative PCR Assays for Detecting Loach Minnow (Rhinichthys cobitis) and Spikedace (Meda fulgida) in the Southwestern United States Joseph C. Dysthe1*, Kellie J. Carim1, Yvette M. Paroz2, Kevin S. McKelvey1, Michael K. Young1, Michael K. Schwartz1 1 United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, National Genomics Center for Wildlife and Fish Conservation, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT, United States of America, 2 United States a11111 Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM, United States of America * [email protected] Abstract OPEN ACCESS Loach minnow (Rhinichthys cobitis) and spikedace (Meda fulgida) are legally protected Citation: Dysthe JC, Carim KJ, Paroz YM, McKelvey with the status of Endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act and are endemic to KS, Young MK, Schwartz MK (2016) Quantitative the Gila River basin of Arizona and New Mexico. Efficient and sensitive methods for moni- PCR Assays for Detecting Loach Minnow ’ (Rhinichthys cobitis) and Spikedace (Meda fulgida)in toring these species distributions are critical for prioritizing conservation efforts. We devel- the Southwestern United States. PLoS ONE 11(9): oped quantitative PCR assays for detecting loach minnow and spikedace DNA in e0162200. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0162200 environmental samples. Each assay reliably detected low concentrations of target DNA Editor: Michael Hofreiter, University of York, UNITED without detection of non-target species, including other cyprinid fishes with which they co- KINGDOM occur. Received: April 27, 2016 Accepted: August 18, 2016 Published: September 1, 2016 Copyright: This is an open access article, free of all Introduction copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used Loach minnow (Rhinichthys cobitis) and spikedace (Meda fulgida) are cyprinid fishes that were by anyone for any lawful purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • ADOT Herbicide Treatment Program on Bureau of Land Management Lands in Arizona
    October 2015 BLM DOI-BLM-AZ-0000-2013-0001-EA ADOT Herbicide Treatment Program on Bureau of Land Management Lands in Arizona Final Environmental Assessment Bureau of Land Management Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation ADOT Herbicide Treatment Program on Bureau of Land Management Lands in Arizona DOI-BLM-AZ-0000-2013-0001-EA Bureau of Land Management Arizona State Office One North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4427 October 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. iii Acronym List ................................................................................................................................... iv Section 1 – Proposed Action, Purpose and Need, and Background Information ........................... 1 1.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Proposed Action Overview ............................................................................................... 3 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Coronado Revised Plan
    Coronado National United States Forest Department of Agriculture Forest Draft Land and Service Resource Management August 2011 Plan The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Printed on recycled paper – Month and Year Draft Land and Resource Management Plan Coronado National Forest Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona Hidalgo County, New Mexico Responsible Official: Regional Forester Southwestern Region 333 Broadway Boulevard SE Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 842-3292 For more information contact: Forest Planner Coronado National Forest 300 West Congress, FB 42 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 388-8300 TTY 711 [email protected] ii Draft Land and Management Resource Plan Coronado National Forest Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................... 1 Purpose of Land and Resource Management Plan ......................................... 1 Overview of the Coronado National Forest .....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Coronado National Forest Draft Land and Resource Management Plan I Contents
    United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Coronado National Forest Southwestern Region Draft Land and Resource MB-R3-05-7 October 2013 Management Plan Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona, and Hidalgo County, New Mexico The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Front cover photos (clockwise from upper left): Meadow Valley in the Huachuca Ecosystem Management Area; saguaros in the Galiuro Mountains; deer herd; aspen on Mt. Lemmon; Riggs Lake; Dragoon Mountains; Santa Rita Mountains “sky island”; San Rafael grasslands; historic building in Cave Creek Canyon; golden columbine flowers; and camping at Rose Canyon Campground. Printed on recycled paper • October 2013 Draft Land and Resource Management Plan Coronado National Forest Cochise, Graham, Pima, Pinal, and Santa Cruz Counties, Arizona Hidalgo County, New Mexico Responsible Official: Regional Forester Southwestern Region 333 Broadway Boulevard, SE Albuquerque, NM 87102 (505) 842-3292 For Information Contact: Forest Planner Coronado National Forest 300 West Congress, FB 42 Tucson, AZ 85701 (520) 388-8300 TTY 711 [email protected] Contents Chapter 1.
    [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]
  • Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations
    Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations Revised Report and Documentation Prepared for: Department of Defense U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Submitted by: January 2004 Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations: Revised Report and Documentation CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary..........................................................................................iii 2.0 Introduction – Project Description................................................................. 1 3.0 Methods ................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 NatureServe Data................................................................................................ 3 3.2 DOD Installations............................................................................................... 5 3.3 Species at Risk .................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Results................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Nationwide Assessment of Species at Risk on DOD Installations..................... 8 4.2 Assessment of Species at Risk by Military Service.......................................... 13 4.3 Assessment of Species at Risk on Installations ................................................ 15 5.0 Conclusion and Management Recommendations.................................... 22 6.0 Future Directions.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Saddlebrooke Hiking Club Hike Database 11-15-2020 Hike Location Hike Rating Hike Name Hike Description
    SaddleBrooke Hiking Club Hike Database 11-15-2020 Hike Location Hike Rating Hike Name Hike Description AZ Trail B Arizona Trail: Alamo Canyon This passage begins at a point west of the White Canyon Wilderness on the Tonto (Passage 17) National Forest boundary about 0.6 miles due east of Ajax Peak. From here the trail heads west and north for about 1.5 miles, eventually dropping into a two- track road and drainage. Follow the drainage north for about 100 feet until it turns left (west) via the rocky drainage and follow this rocky two-track for approximately 150 feet. At this point there is new signage installed leading north (uphill) to a saddle. This is a newly constructed trail which passes through the saddle and leads downhill across a rugged and lush hillside, eventually arriving at FR4. After crossing FR4, the trail continues west and turns north as you work your way toward Picketpost Mountain. The trail will continue north and eventually wraps around to the west side of Picketpost and somewhat paralleling Alamo Canyon drainage until reaching the Picketpost Trailhead. Hike 13.6 miles; trailhead elevations 3471 feet south and 2399 feet north; net elevation change 1371 feet; accumulated gains 1214 northward and 2707 feet southward; RTD __ miles (dirt). AZ Trail A Arizona Trail: Babbitt Ranch This passage begins just east of the Cedar Ranch area where FR 417 and FR (Passage 35) 9008A intersect. From here the route follows a pipeline road north to the Tub Ranch Camp. The route continues towards the corrals (east of the buildings).
    [Show full text]
  • Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998
    GILA TOPMINNOW, Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis, REVISED RECOVERY PLAN (Original Approval: March 15, 1984) Prepared by David A. Weedman Arizona Game and Fish Department Phoenix, Arizona for Region 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Albuquerque, New Mexico December 1998 Approved: Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Date: Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998 DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions required to recover and protect the species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) prepares the plans, sometimes with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State and Federal Agencies, and others. Objectives are attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Time and costs provided for individual tasks are estimates only, and not to be taken as actual or budgeted expenditures. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor official positions or approval of any persons or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the Service. They represent the official position of the Service only after they have been signed by the Regional Director or Director as approved. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery tasks. ii Gila Topminnow Revised Recovery Plan December 1998 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Original preparation of the revised Gila topminnow Recovery Plan (1994) was done by Francisco J. Abarca 1, Brian E. Bagley, Dean A. Hendrickson 1 and Jeffrey R. Simms 1. That document was modified to this current version and the work conducted by those individuals is greatly appreciated and now acknowledged.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Missouri's Toads and Frogs Booklet
    TOADSMissouri’s andFROGS by Jeffrey T. Briggler and Tom R. Johnson, Herpetologists www.MissouriConservation.org © 1982, 2008 Missouri Conservation Commission Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs of the Missouri Department of Conservation is available to all individuals without regard to their race, color, national origin, sex, age or disability. Questions should be directed to the Department of Conservation, P.O. Box 180, Jefferson City, MO 65102, (573) 751-4115 (voice) or 800-735-2966 (TTY), or to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Federal Assistance, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop: MBSP-4020, Arlington, VA 22203. Cover photo: Eastern gray treefrog by Tom R. Johnson issouri toads and frogs are colorful, harmless, vocal and valuable. Our forests, prairies, rivers, swamps and marshes are Mhome to a multitude of toads and frogs, but few people know how many varieties we have, how to tell them apart, or much about their natural history. Studying these animals and sharing their stories with fellow Missourians is one of the most pleasurable and rewarding aspects of our work. Toads and frogs are amphibians—a class Like most of vertebrate animals that also includes amphibians, salamanders and the tropical caecilians, which are long, slender, wormlike and legless. frogs and Missouri has 26 species and subspecies (or toads have geographic races) of toads and frogs. Toads and frogs differ from salamanders by having an aquatic relatively short bodies and lacking tails at adulthood. Being an amphibian means that tadpole stage they live two lives: an aquatic larval or tadpole and a semi- stage and a semi-aquatic or terrestrial adult stage.
    [Show full text]
  • <I>Sorghum Halepense</I>
    ISPM 27 27 ANNEX 19 ENG DP 19: Sorghum halepense INTERNATIONAL STANDARD FOR PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES PHYTOSANITARY FOR STANDARD INTERNATIONAL DIAGNOSTIC PROTOCOLS Produced by the Secretariat of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) This page is intentionally left blank This diagnostic protocol was adopted by the Standards Committee on behalf of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures in January 2017. The annex is a prescriptive part of ISPM 27. ISPM 27 Diagnostic protocols for regulated pests DP 19: Sorghum halepense Adopted 2017; published 2017 CONTENTS 1. Pest Information ............................................................................................................................... 2 2. Taxonomic Information .................................................................................................................... 2 3. Detection ........................................................................................................................................... 2 3.1 Preparation of samples for laboratory analysis ................................................................. 2 3.2 Sieve detection .................................................................................................................. 3 4. Identification ..................................................................................................................................... 3 4.1 Morphological identification of seeds ............................................................................... 3 4.1.1
    [Show full text]