DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Opinion for San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Resource Management Plan, Cochise County, Arizona

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Opinion for San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Resource Management Plan, Cochise County, Arizona United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Arizona Ecological Services Office 9828 North 31st Avenue, Suite C3 Phoenix, Arizona 85051 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 Fax: (602) 242-2513 In reply refer to: AESO/SE In reply refer to: AESO/SE 02EAAZ00-2019-F-0122 June 7, 2019 Memorandum To: Jayme Lopez, Field Manager, Gila District Office, Bureau of Land Management, Tucson, Arizona From: Jeffrey L. Humphrey, Field Supervisor Subject: Biological Opinion for San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Resource Management Plan, Cochise County, Arizona Thank you for your request for formal consultation and conference with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531-1544), as amended (Act). Your request was dated February 12, 2019, and received by us on February 25, 2018. At issue are impacts that may result from the proposed San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Resource Management Plan located in Cochise County, Arizona. The proposed action may affect and is likely to adversely affect the following endangered species: 1) Huachuca water umbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana var. recurva) and its designated critical habitat; 2) desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius); 3) Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis); 4) southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus); and 5) ocelot (Leopardus pardalis); as well as the following threatened species: 1) northern Mexican gartersnake (Thamnophis eques megalops); and 2) yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). In your memorandum, you requested our concurrence that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect the endangered jaguar (Panthera onca). We concur with your determination and include our rationale in Appendix A. You also determined that the action would have “no effect” on the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) and northern aplomado falcon (Falco femoralis septentrionalis), as well as critical habitat for the following species: jaguar, Chiricahua leopard frog, and southwestern willow flycatcher, as they do not occur in the project area. “No effect” determinations do not require our review and are not addressed further. Per our discussions, we jointly determined that the proposed action would not adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat for the 2 yellow-billed cuckoo or northern Mexican gartersnake. Therefore, effects to these proposed critical habitats are not addressed in this biological opinion, but will be addressed once critical habitat designations are finalized for these species. This biological opinion and conference opinion is based on information provided in the May 2019 Biological Assessment for the Proposed Resource Management Plan for the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (2019 BA or BLM 2019), as well as email correspondence between our agencies and other sources of information. Literature cited in this biological and conference opinion is not a complete bibliography of all literature available on the species of concern, resource management activities and their effects, or on other subjects considered in this opinion. A complete record of this consultation is on file at this office. This biological opinion does not address previous BLM actions in the action area for which consultation has already occurred, but incorporates them by reference where appropriate. A complete list of previous consultations is found in Table 2 of the 2019 BA and below. Consultation History • October 24, 2018: we received your draft Biological Assessment and request for formal consultation. • November 27-December 19, 2018: we spoke with and met with your staff numerous times to discuss and resolve issues related to the draft BA. • December 22, 2018 through January 26, 2019: Federal government lapse in funding and Federal employees furloughed. • February 25, 2019: we received your Biological Assessment and request for formal consultation. • April 10-17, 2019: we spoke with your staff numerous times to discuss and resolve additional issues related to the BA, and were informed of changes to the proposed action. • May 1, 2019: we received your Revised Biological Assessment including changes to the proposed action. • May 3-7, 2019: we spoke with your staff to discuss and resolve ongoing issues related to the revised BA. • May 9, 2019: we received a newly Revised Biological Assessment reflecting changes from the draft Resource Management Plan to the Proposed Resource Management Plan and initiated consultation. • May 10-14, 2019: we spoke with your staff to discuss and resolve ongoing issues related to the revised BA. • May 22, 2019: we received a Final Revised Biological Assessment. • May 24, 2019: we sent you the draft biological opinion. • June 3, 2019: we received your comments on the draft biological opinion. 3 BIOLOGICAL OPINION DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION A complete description of the proposed action is found in the May 2019 Biological Assessment for the Proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) for the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (SPRNCA) and is summarized below. The RMP describes planning-level decisions and these decisions (e.g., goals and objectives, land use allocation decisions, and all special designations) become effective on approval of the record of decision. Management actions that necessitate more site-specific project planning require further environmental analysis; decisions to implement site-specific projects are subject to administrative and environmental review when such decisions are made. Implementation of all actions and decisions in the RMP is subject to available funding and staffing. The proposed action includes 1) goals, which are broad statements that describe desired outcomes that are usually not quantifiable; 2) objectives, which identify specific desired outcomes and are usually measurable and may have an established time frame for achievement; 3) allocations and allowable uses, which are decisions that describe geographic areas for specific resources or uses; and 4) management actions, which are actions anticipated to achieve desired future conditions, goals, and objectives. Below, “Management Actions and Allowable Uses” and “Land Use Allocations” from the May 2019 Biological Assessment are included, and in some cases, summarized or shortened (particularly when they are not anticipated to affect listed species and critical habitat), below. Other aspects of the proposed action (e.g., goals, objectives) can be found in the May 2019 Biological Assessment. Air Quality 1. When implementing BLM or BLM-approved activities, minimize surface disturbances to prevent the addition of large quantities of dust to the air; apply stipulations to mitigate the impacts on air quality. 2. If any or all of the SPRNCA is designated as a nonattainment area for violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), work with regulatory agencies to follow the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for reducing air pollutants in the area. Soil and Watershed Management 1. Use a broad array of management tools and structures to control sheet, rill, and gully erosion in areas indicating accelerated erosion from lack of vegetation cover and soil erosivity. 2. Seed and plant using only native seeds and plants, if needed, following fire, flood, or other disturbance. 3. Improve watershed health and prioritize treatments for recharge enhancements in ephemeral tributaries (refer to Appendices G and I of the EIS); monitor groundwater levels in monitoring wells near recharge enhancement projects, if there are no increases in groundwater levels, then implement recharge enhancement projects that are larger in scale, are closer to the river, or are a different type of recharge enhancement. 4. Enhance riverine geomorphology and bank recharge to protect base flow through low impact structural and nonstructural approaches where needed in San Pedro River 4 segments (refer to Appendices G and I of the EIS); implement small structures and monitor channel slope, sinuosity, soil moisture, groundwater levels near treatments, and vegetation cover. 5. Assess the human-made structures from historical land uses, such as agricultural dikes and berms, railroad grades, and ditches and diversions, for hydrologic function. determine their level of impairment and either dismantle or alter them, as necessary 6. Modify all routes affecting watershed health and function as necessary to restore watershed function and long-term health (see Section 3.2.3 of the EIS). Water Management 1. Review and assess water needs for resources managed on the SPRNCA and acquire and perfect new water rights as deemed necessary for management. 2. Design any pumping of groundwater for BLM-authorized actions to reduce impacts on base flows, such as putting floats in troughs and seasonally restricting groundwater pumping. 3. Do not approve land use authorizations (realty actions) involving additional groundwater pumping on the SPRNCA, subject to valid existing rights. 4. Assess existing wells on the SPRNCA for use as monitoring wells, administrative use, wildlife use (drinking and habitat), habitat restoration (for maintaining a limited number of off-channel aquatic habitats for threatened and endangered species recovery), livestock use, emergency habitat augmentation, and other potential uses. Recharge Enhancement Projects Reasonably Foreseeable Development Scenario The potential project size was determined based on soil types that had the highest potential for infiltration.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    United States Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2321 West Royal Palm Road, Suite 103 Phoenix, Arizona 85021 Telephone: (602) 242-0210 FAX: (602) 242-2513 AESO/SE 02-21-02-F-0157 January 16, 2004 Ms. Sue Kozacek Acting Forest Supervisor Coronado National Forest 300 West Congress, 6th Floor Tucson, Arizona 85701 Dear Ms. Kozacek: This letter constitutes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s Service biological opinion, based on our review of the wildfire suppression actions associated with the Ryan Fire located on the Coronado National Forest, Santa Cruz County, Arizona. This biological opinion analyzes the project’s effect on Sonora tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum stebbinsi) (STS) and Chiricahua leopard frog (Rana chiricahuensis) (CLF) in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). We received your February 20, 2003 request for formal consultation on February 21, 2003. In that request, you determined that suppression activities associated with the Ryan fire likely adversely affected CLF and STS. You have also requested our concurrence that suppression activities may have affected, but did not likely adversely affect, lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae), Huachuca water umbel (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva), Canelo Hills ladies’ tresses (Spiranthes delitescens), and Gila topminnow (Poeciliopsis occidentalis occidentalis). Our concurrences are provided in Appendix A. This biological opinion is based on information provided in the January 28, 2003 biological assessment (BA). Literature cited in this draft biological opinion is not a complete bibliography of all literature available on the species of concern, wildfire suppression and its effects, or on other subjects considered in this opinion.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Opinion on USFS Aerial Application of Fire Retardants on NFS Lands
    2011 USFWS Biological Opinion on USFS Aerial Application of Fire Retardants on NFS Lands BIOLOGICAL OPINION Effects to Listed Species from U.S. Forest Service Aerial Application of Fire Retardants on National Forest System Lands Consultation Conducted by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8) December 6, 2011 Return to Table of Contents 1 | P a g e 2011 USFWS Biological Opinion on USFS Aerial Application of Fire Retardants on NFS Lands Table of Contents Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 10 Consultation History ................................................................................................................................... 11 Species not likely to be adversely affected ................................................................................................. 17 BIOLOGICAL OPINION ................................................................................................................................. 27 Description of the Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 27 Aerial Application of Fire Retardant Direction .................................................................................... 28 Reporting and Monitoring
    [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]
  • Endangered Species Series No. 4 Petition to List The
    . 1 OC t,(.3 t r a-k. PETITION TO LIST THE HUACHUCA WATER UMBELL Lilaeopsis schaffneriana subspecies recurva AS A FEDERALLY ENDANGERED SPECIES May 31, 1993 GREATER GILA BIODIVERSITY PROJECT ENDANGERED SPECIES SERIES NO. 4 May 31, 1993 Mr. Bruce Babbitt Secretary of the Interior Office of the Secretary Department of the Interior 18th and "C" Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20240 Kieran Suckling, the Greater Gila Biodiversity Project, the Southwest Center For Biological Diversity, and the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, hereby formally petition to list the Huachuca Water Umbell (Lilaeopsis schaffneriana subspecies recurva) as endangered pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. (hereafter referred to as "ESA"). This petition is filed under 5 U.S.C. 553(e) and 50 CFR 424.14 (1990), which grants interested parties the right to petition for issue of a rule from the Assistant Secretary of the Interior. Petitioners also request that Critical Habitat be designated concurrent with the listing, pursuant to 50 CFR 424.12, and pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553). Petitioners understand that this petition action sets in motion a specific process placing definite response requirements on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and very specific time constraints upon those responses. Petitioners Kieran Suckling is a Doctoral Candidate, endangered species field researcher, and conservationist. He serves as the Director of the Greater Gila Biodiversity Project and has extensively studied the status and natural history of Lilaeopsis schaffneriana subspecies recurva. The Greater Gila Biodiversity Project is a non-profit public interest organization created to protect imperiled species and habitats within the Greater Gila Ecosystem of southwest New Mexico and eastern Arizona.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Rare Plant Advisory Group Sensitive Plant List -June 2014
    ARIZONA RARE PLANT ADVISORY GROUP SENSITIVE PLANT LIST -JUNE 2014 •.. -e 'I"': ~ ~ •.. ·s o 0 .g o rn u rn '•".. ..>: ::s ~ ~ ~ 0"' tU I': ~ ~ Z ..•.. ~ '" u ::... 0 ~ E 0 u -; •.. is '5 rn 0 0 ~ ;::l ~ "g u d iL< ..>: ~ 0 •.. ~ s •.... "B .. § 0 ; 0 ~ ~ U ~ il< < ~ E-< ~ VERY HIGH CONCERN Agave delamateri Hodgs. & Slauson Asparagaceae w.e L Tonto Basin Agave 7 7 7 c Asparagaceae Agave phillipsiana w.e Hodgs wand Canvon Centurv Plant 7 7 7 nc Aotragalus crt!mnophylax uar: crt!mnophylax Bameby Fabaceae Sentrv Milk-vetch 7 8 7.5 c AOfragalus holmgreniomm Bameby Fabaceae Holmgren (Paradox) Milk-vetch 7 7 7 c Orobanchaceae Castilleja mogollonica PeJ2lJell Mogollon Paintbrush 7 8 7.5 Lv c Apiaceae Eryngium sparganophyllum HemsL Ribbonleaf Button Snakeroot 6 8 7 v? nc Lotus meamsii var. equisolensis].L Anderson Fabaccae Horseshoe Deer Vetch 6 8 7 nc Cactaceae Pediacactus brat!Ji L Benson Brady Pincushion Cactus 7 7 7 c Boraginaceae Phacelia cronquistiana S.L Wel,.h Cronquist's Phacelia 7 8 7.5 nc PotClltil1a arizona Greene Rosaceae Arizone Cinquefoil 6 8 7 nc Sphaeralcea gierischii N.D. Atwood & S.L Welsh Malvaceae Gierisch globemallow 7 7 7 nc HIGH CONCERN Ranunculaceae Actaea arizonica (S. Watson) J. Compton Arizona Buzbane 6 6 6 c Agave murpheyi F. Gibson Asparagaeeae Hohokam Agave 6 6 6 c Asnaragaceae Agave yavapaiensis Yavapai Agave 6 7 6.5 ne Aletes macdougalli ssp. macdougaftiJM. Coulto & Rose Apiaceae MacDougal's Indian parsley 6 6 6 nc Alide/la cliffordii J.M. Potter Polernoniaceae Clifford's Gilia 5 7 6 nc Antic/ea vaginata Rydb.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 250/Wednesday, December 30
    71838 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 250 / Wednesday, December 30, 1998 / Proposed Rules * * * * * streams or rivers in Cochise and Santa appointment, during normal business Dated: December 22, 1998. Cruz counties, Arizona. If this proposal hours at the above address. Donald Barry, is made final, section 7 of the Act would FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: prohibit destruction or adverse Tom Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Gatz, Endangered Species Coordinator, Parks. modification of critical habitat by any at the above address (telephone 602/ [FR Doc. 98±34412 Filed 12±23±98; 3:59 pm] activity funded, authorized, or carried 640±2720 ext. 240; facsimile 602/640± BILLING CODE 4310±55±C out by any Federal agency. Section 4 of the Act requires us to consider 2730). economic and other impacts of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR specifying any particular area as critical habitat. We solicit data and comments Background Fish and Wildlife Service from the public on all aspects of this Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva proposal, including data on the 50 CFR Part 17 (referred to as Lilaeopsis in this economic and other impacts of the proposed rule), the Huachuca water RIN 1018±AF37 designation. We may revise this umbel, is a plant found in cienegas proposal to incorporate or address new (desert marshes), streams and springs in Endangered and Threatened Wildlife information received during the southern Arizona and northern Sonora, and Plants; Proposed Determination of comment period. Mexico, typically in mid-elevation Critical Habitat for the Huachuca Water DATES: We will accept comments until wetland communities often surrounded Umbel, a Plant March 1, 1999.
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Game and Fish Department Heritage Data Management System
    ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT HERITAGE DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM Plant Abstract Element Code: PDAPI19051 Data Sensitivity: Yes CLASSIFICATION, NOMENCLATURE, DESCRIPTION, RANGE NAME: Lilaeopsis schaffneriana (Schlecht) var. recurva (A.W. Hill) Affolter COMMON NAME: Huachuca water umbel, Huachuca water-umbel, Huachuca waterumbel, Schaffner’s grasswort, Cienega False-rush SYNONYMS: Lilaeopsis recurva A.W. Hill, L. schaffneriana ssp. recurva FAMILY: Apiaceae AUTHOR, PLACE OF PUBLICATION: A.W. Hill, J. Linn. Soc. Bot. 47: 525-551. 1927. TYPE LOCALITY: Santa Cruz Valley near Tucson, Pima County, Arizona, U.S.A. TYPE SPECIMEN: LT: GH. C.G. Pringle s.n. 19 May 1881. LT: US. ST: NY, GH. TAXONOMIC UNIQUENESS: In the genus Lilaeopsis, the species schaffneriana is 1 of 5 species in North America, and contains only 1 variety recurva. According to Affolter (1985), “The genus Lilaeopsis Greene contains approximately 20 species. It is well developed in the temperate zones of North America, South America, Australia and New Zealand. 6 or 7 species recognized in North America.” According to NatureServe (2003), “The USFWS listed this taxon as Lilaeopsis schaffneriana ssp. recurva (Federal Register, Jan. 6, 1997). As of 11/31/99, L. schaffneriana var. recurva is used in its List of Endangered and Threatened Plants. The latter rank, is also used by Kartesz (1999). However, subspecies seems to be the rank used by Affolter (1985, p. 61), and is accepted in the Gray Index (online, 8/2000).” It is also used by the Missouri Botanical Garden (2003). DESCRIPTION: Herbaceous, semi-aquatic to aquatic perennial with cylindrical, wavy, yellowish green, slender hollow leaves borne individually or in clusters, that grow from the nodes of creeping rhizomes; inconspicuous septa at irregular intervals.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 665
    Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 3 / Monday, January 6, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 665 231A to Morristown at Station DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR springs and stream headwaters, have WMXK(FM)'s existing site at permanently or seasonally saturated coordinates North Latitude 36±13±40 Fish and Wildlife Service highly organic soils, and have a low and West Longitude 83±19±58; and probability of flooding or scouring 50 CFR Part 17 Channel 252A to Whitley City at Station (Hendrickson and Minckley 1984). WHAY(FM)'s existing site at North RIN 1018±AD11 Cienegas support diverse assemblages of Latitude 36±44±39 and West Longitude animals and plants, including many 84±28±37. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife species of limited distribution, such as and Plants; Determination of the three taxa addressed in this final This is a summary of the Endangered Status for Three Wetland rule (Hendrickson and Minckley 1984, Commission's Memorandum Opinion Species Found in Southern Arizona Lowe 1985, Ohmart and Anderson 1982, and Order, MM Docket No. 93±28, and Northern Sonora, Mexico Minckley and Brown 1982). Although adopted December 13, 1996 and Spiranthes delitescens (Spiranthes), released December 20, 1996. The full AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Lilaeopsis schaffneriana spp. recurva text of this Commission decision is Interior. (Lilaeopsis), and the Sonora tiger available for inspection and copying ACTION: Final rule. salamander typically occupy different during normal business hours in microhabitats, they all occur or once SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service Commission's Reference Center (Room occurred in cienegas. Lilaeopsis is also (Service) determines endangered status 239), 1919 M Street, NW., Washington, found along streams and rivers and for the Canelo Hills ladies-tresses occurs at mid-elevations, from 1,148± DC 20554.
    [Show full text]
  • The Quitobaquito Desert Pupfish, an Endangered Species Within Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument: Historical Significance and Management Challenges
    Volume 40 Issue 2 The La Paz Symposium on Transboundary Groundwater Management on the U.S. - Mexico Border Spring 2000 The Quitobaquito Desert Pupfish, An Endangered Species within Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument: Historical Significance and Management Challenges Gina Pearson Charles W. Conner Recommended Citation Gina Pearson & Charles W. Conner, The Quitobaquito Desert Pupfish, An Endangered Species within Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument: Historical Significance and Management Challenges, 40 Nat. Resources J. 379 (2000). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol40/iss2/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Natural Resources Journal by an authorized editor of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. GINA PEARSON & CHARLES W. CONNER* The Quitobaquito Desert Pupfish, An Endangered Species within Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument: Historical Significance and Management Challenges ABSTRACT The largest body of water at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument is Quitobaquito springs and pond, home to the Quitobaquito desert pupfish (Cyprinodon macularius eremus). The fish was listed as endangered in 1986, along with identification of its critical habitat. The cultural significance of the Quitobaquito area dates to approximately 11,000 B.P. (before present). The natural resource significance is elevated by the existence of other endemic species. The Monument has primarily managed the area for its natural resource significance and critical habitat improvement for decades. Today, a major inventory and monitoring program exists for the pupfish and for water quality and quantity.
    [Show full text]
  • Field Operations Manual
    United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water Office of Environmental Information Washington, DC EPA-841-B-07-009 National Rivers and Streams Assessment Field Operations Manual April 2009 National Rivers and Streams Assessment Final Manual Field Operations Manual Date: April 2009 Page ii This page is intentionally blank National Rivers and Streams Assessment Final Manual Field Operations Manual Date: April 2009 Page iii NOTICE The intention of the National Rivers and Streams Assessment project is to provide a comprehensive “State of the Flowing Waters” assessment for rivers and streams across the United States. The complete documentation of overall project management, design, methods, and standards is contained in four companion documents: National Rivers and Streams Assessment: Quality Assurance Project Plan (EPA- 841-B-07-007) National Rivers and Streams Assessment: Site Evaluation Guidelines (EPA-841-B- 07-008) National Rivers and Streams Assessment: Field Operations Manual (EPA-841-B-07- 009) National Rivers and Streams Assessment: Laboratory Methods Manual (EPA-841-B- 07-010) This document (Field Operations Manual) contains a brief introduction and procedures to follow at the base location and on-site, including methods for sampling water chemistry (grabs and in situ measurements), periphyton, benthic macroinvertebrates, sediment enzymes, fish composition, fish tissue (at non-wadeable sites), a fecal indicator, and physical habitat. These methods are based on the guidelines developed and followed in the Western Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (Baker, et al., 1997), the methods outlined in Concepts and Approaches for the Bioassessment of Non-wadeable Streams and Rivers (Flotemersch, et al., 2006), and methods employed by several key states that were involved in the planning phase of this project.
    [Show full text]
  • Weed Risk Assessment for Lilaeopsis Brasiliensis (Glaziou) Affolter (Apiaceae) – Brazilian Micro Sword
    United States Department of Weed Risk Assessment Agriculture for Lilaeopsis brasiliensis (Glaziou) Animal and Affolter (Apiaceae) – Brazilian micro Plant Health Inspection sword Service May 19, 2017 Version 1 Top: Lawn-like habit of Lilaeopsis brasiliensis under high light in an aquarium. Bottom left: A clump with offshoots being produced along rhizomes. Bottom right: A clump growing in rock wool. All photos obtained with permission (Nelson, 2017) from Tropica’s (2017) website. AGENCY CONTACT Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory Center for Plant Health Science and Technology Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service United States Department of Agriculture 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606 Weed Risk Assessment for Lilaeopsis brasiliensis (Brazilian micro sword) 1. Introduction Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) regulates noxious weeds under the authority of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. § 7701-7786, 2000) and the Federal Seed Act (7 U.S.C. § 1581-1610, 1939). A noxious weed is defined as “any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public health, or the environment” (7 U.S.C. § 7701-7786, 2000). We use the PPQ weed risk assessment (WRA) process (PPQ, 2015) to evaluate the risk potential of plants, including those newly detected in the United States, those proposed for import, and those emerging as weeds elsewhere in the world. The PPQ WRA process includes three analytical components that together describe the risk profile of a plant species (risk potential, uncertainty, and geographic potential; PPQ, 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • Lilaeopsis Mauritiana G
    United States Department of Weed Risk Assessment Agriculture for Lilaeopsis mauritiana G. Petersen Animal and & Affolter (Apiaceae) – Mauritius Plant Health Inspection micro sword Service May 19, 2017 Version 1 Left: Lawn-like habit of Lilaeopsis mauritiana under high light in an aquarium. Right: Drawing of a clump without rhizomes. All photos obtained with permission (Nelson, 2017) from Tropica’s (2017) website. AGENCY CONTACT Plant Epidemiology and Risk Analysis Laboratory Center for Plant Health Science and Technology Plant Protection and Quarantine Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service United States Department of Agriculture 1730 Varsity Drive, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27606 Weed Risk Assessment for Lilaeopsis mauritiana (Mauritius micro sword) 1. Introduction Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) regulates noxious weeds under the authority of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. § 7701-7786, 2000) and the Federal Seed Act (7 U.S.C. § 1581-1610, 1939). A noxious weed is defined as “any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant products), livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public health, or the environment” (7 U.S.C. § 7701-7786, 2000). We use the PPQ weed risk assessment (WRA) process (PPQ, 2015) to evaluate the risk potential of plants, including those newly detected in the United States, those proposed for import, and those emerging as weeds elsewhere in the world. The PPQ WRA process includes three analytical components that together describe the risk profile of a plant species (risk potential, uncertainty, and geographic potential; PPQ, 2015).
    [Show full text]